Post: #26

I just read the law and the whole porn industry should be shut down if they mean what they say. Get the fireworks started. Kamala Harris was in on this bullshit and I hope it trashes her presidential chances.

Post: #27

(04-06-2018 10:06 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Years ago I remember reading about how the internet mostly eliminated street level hookers. The new law takes all of the whores and puts them back on the street

Just wanted to say this is kind of a myth/urban legend:

If you stay at a low end motel (30-40 bucks a night), hookers will knock on your door. These are usually older women (35+) desperate enough to be negotiated down, but if you smoke cigarettes, and hang out in the front area you can strike up a conversation with drug dealers who can broker a deal with a younger chick. (the dealers usually keep the younger ones as girlfriends, so they dont have to hook) But anyways, you'd still end up paying way less than backpage, if going this route.

Besides motels, in urban areas of the city (not necessarily "the hood", working class blue collar people live in these areas), you'll see girls loitering at intersections. The thing is, they are wearing jeans and sneakers to fly "under the radar", but if shes been solitary for 5 minutee straight, or keeps walking up and down the strreet its a dead giveaway. In Cincinnati, we have 10 different nwighborhoods like this, where you can spot 5 different girls workin at any given time. And contrary to popular belief, i've seen the most girls out, before sunset (6 PM).

And lastly, you have the downtown area - alot of drug transactions take place, because its so crowded. Incase you're wondering how i know all of this _ one day around lunchtime, i saw 2 girls walking - one had the obvious drug stagger going on, disheveled hair/clothes, but the other was a normal white girl, just had a super tan from being outside so much. I stopped them to ask whats going on (code = ARE YALL HUSTLING RIGHT NOW)

She was accompanying her roommate to buy heroin, but claims she herself didnt use. She panhandled from time to time cause it was easier than a job and allowed her more time woth her kids. But yeah, aside from being a 23 year old single mom of two, she was beautiful and in shape, only flaws was her voice sounded goofy, and she'd veer off into weord conspiracy theories.

Post: #28

(04-07-2018 09:13 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Basically the law offers no explanation for how it protects children. But as many sources point out, by forcing hookers back to the streets it puts many of them in danger. Some people probably even think this will make a dent in prostitution. Makes me think of stringer bell.

“What, you think a nigga’s gonna get a job?” “You think...you think it’s going to be like ‘fuck it, let me quit this game here and go to college’?

Protect children?! LOL! This law won't protect anyone, except the maniacs who seek to harm hookers. If I were to create a law designed to empower serial killers and kidnappers, I could not do better than this one.

Before: Hookers could screen clients, work out of a hotel or home, and generally have some control over who they see.

Now: Women have to take to the street (or do other under-the-radar things) and won't know who the hell will pick them up -- or where they'll bring them.

I saw some statistic that claimed the murder rate for sex workers fell after the introduction of online ads. Not only do I expect the murder rate to rise, but I bet we'll be seeing a lot more missing persons reports.

All of which gets me thinking (again) that this is some kind of prelude to bigger, worse laws that will screw us all. I recently came across an article at Vice saying "Social Media Bans Aren't Enough to Stop the Far Right" (cache link here).

It boggles my mind the way idiots from both the right and left think bans will stop things like prostitution and "wrongthink." It also troubles me that when people don't like what others are doing or thinking, their response is "Let's ban it." What the eff happened to this country? What happened to live and let live?

I personally don't like a lot of things, but banning them is never where my mind goes. Maybe bans could have seemed like a good idea years ago. But today people have instant, online access to more history and ideas than ever before. Can't they see that everything from Prohibition to the PMRC didn't work?

Post: #29

The sex-trafficking case is a fucked up excuse and urban myth. The real cases of sexual slavery are such that you never hear about and certainly don't see on backpage. Those venues are either hush-hush or extremely well protected.

The overwhelming majority of women are doing it on their own accord. And other sites will crop up even if that venue closes. Tinder and other dating sites with geographical location measures will become more frequent. I doubt that women will go back to the streets en masse. But of course it's possible that the feds will move even stronger against it.

Post: #30

Just to put this in perspective, while whores are whoring and Johns are Johnning on a voluntary basis and keeping it all out of the public eye to boot, the Podestas are openly flaunting their membership of elite paedophile rings while giving the MSM tours of their homes riddled with obscene artwork depicting child abuse.

Clown world, friends.

The day of the rope cannot come fast enough, particularly for a consequential number of kids at various stages of the kidnap-rape-disposal cycle.

Post: #31

I don't think many will hit the streets but vpn usage is going to skyrocket. I can easily see them using mobile app VPN to get around the censorship. The feds will try to take down foreign sites but some countries will ignore those orders either because of jurisdiction or lack legal standing in that country.

Canada and other surrounding countries seem lax on this as well. Some of those sites would be smart to create a USA section. Only problem with this is that they might be vulnerable to getting extradited to the USA for sex trafficking charges, in the same way they tried to get Rawmeo.

Post: #32

(04-08-2018 01:48 AM)CincinnatiKid Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:06 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Years ago I remember reading about how the internet mostly eliminated street level hookers. The new law takes all of the whores and puts them back on the street

Just wanted to say this is kind of a myth/urban legend:

If you stay at a low end motel (30-40 bucks a night), hookers will knock on your door. These are usually older women (35+) desperate enough to be negotiated down, but if you smoke cigarettes, and hang out in the front area you can strike up a conversation with drug dealers who can broker a deal with a younger chick. (the dealers usually keep the younger ones as girlfriends, so they dont have to hook) But anyways, you'd still end up paying way less than backpage, if going this route.

Besides motels, in urban areas of the city (not necessarily "the hood", working class blue collar people live in these areas), you'll see girls loitering at intersections. The thing is, they are wearing jeans and sneakers to fly "under the radar", but if shes been solitary for 5 minutee straight, or keeps walking up and down the strreet its a dead giveaway. In Cincinnati, we have 10 different nwighborhoods like this, where you can spot 5 different girls workin at any given time. And contrary to popular belief, i've seen the most girls out, before sunset (6 PM).

And lastly, you have the downtown area - alot of drug transactions take place, because its so crowded. Incase you're wondering how i know all of this _ one day around lunchtime, i saw 2 girls walking - one had the obvious drug stagger going on, disheveled hair/clothes, but the other was a normal white girl, just had a super tan from being outside so much. I stopped them to ask whats going on (code = ARE YALL HUSTLING RIGHT NOW)

She was accompanying her roommate to buy heroin, but claims she herself didnt use. She panhandled from time to time cause it was easier than a job and allowed her more time woth her kids. But yeah, aside from being a 23 year old single mom of two, she was beautiful and in shape, only flaws was her voice sounded goofy, and she'd veer off into weord conspiracy theories.

No, I agree on the prior as the internet has dropped street hookers considerably. It used to be much worse. 5 girls is nothing. Back in the day you used to have 30-50 women all spred out along 500 meters of a main strip.

Before the mainstream of internet and the "revitalization" of downtown areas every big city had a hooker main where one or two streets was heavily populated with hookers and dudes would roll up in cars for visits. The sophisticated hoes had cell phones and pagers hooked up via thier pimps to take bookings for the motels. Only other option was to use the "back page" ads in the papers (which the website got its name from), or to call a whore agency but with those you didn't know what you were getting. You ask for a trim blondie and the aganecy sends you a whale with a wig on.. your mileage may vary.

Cops used to run stings all the time as you could find the pimps checking in and you could ding the random dude who was buying sex every now and then

I grew up in a small place and even that town had hookers on a avenue in a seesy part of downtown just beside downtown. My small town had an average of 5-7 per night and this was a tiny place that was maybe the 1/6 the size of Cincinnati.

All these hooker mains are still most seedy , for some odd reason they have been the last or slow to gentrify in many cities but likely because lots of rooming houses and slumlords who control the land and apartments in the area who don't want to give up the easy income and won't sell.

Internet has taken it off the streers. Even sex workers advocates will tell you this because a basic fesr of women is the dark street at night. It was much easier for bearings and muggings to happen in that setting because also drug pushers would be close by with tweakers in the mix. Sex worker advocates also point to the ability of girls to be independent and not have pimps of they can go online and make thier own ads.

All this advancement has up your quality of whore and also has put downward pressure on prices for a bit because whlres flooding the market. Price is still used as s filter mechanism to filter out trash. Your tweaked out drug whore will do car visits for $60 and work of volume and is more prone to take the money for "off the list" items such as raw dog. Your higher priced girls have the ability to filter with price and set hard parameters that only high rollers could attempt to brake.

My view is you'll never get rid of the sex trade so better to have system for those who want to partake to do it in a safe environment.

Post: #33

Just to be clear, the feds siezed Backpage under existing money laundering statutes, not the new law which Trump has not signed yet. Not sure the connection to money laundering, but I think Backpage had paid ads in contrast to CraigsList.

Post: #34

(04-08-2018 06:08 AM)Hypno Wrote:  Just to be clear, the feds siezed Backpage under existing money laundering statutes, not the new law which Trump has not signed yet. Not sure the connection to money laundering, but I think Backpage had paid ads in contrast to CraigsList.

^^^^
Good point. But the same day Backpage went dark, so did Craiglist's "Theraputic" section and The Erotic Reviews (TER). This is a moral panic.

I'm less concerned with the subject per se, and more interested in the way people are behaving. I'm now reading uptight women using phrases like "I'm am an abolitionist!" They actually think they're freeing slaves by inconveniencing hookers and johns.

***

I'll also vouch for what Kosko said about the Internet taking hookers off the streets. There used to be a "hooker row" near where I went to college. I discovered this the hard way.

Way back before the Internet, my buddy and I had driven to a concert* and I decided to take a shortcut back to campus. It was late and I was tired. While I was stopped at a light, I noticed all these women waving and "kids" on bikes.

In my groggy state, I turned to my friend and said "Hey! This area is like a Beach Boys song! There's all these friendly girls wearing sexy clothes and people riding bikes in the streets!"

He look at me incredulously and said "Those are prostitutes and drug dealers you idiot! Now speed it up and get the hell out of this section of town before we get shot!!! Step on it!!"

Anyway, that section doesn't have a "hooker row" anymore, but I wonder if it will come summer.

* The concert was by Jonathan Richman. Anyone remember this guy? He was a nostalgia trip even then, which is why my mind was on the Beach Boys as we left the concert. Music can alter your view of reality. It can for me, anyway.

Post: #35

(04-07-2018 09:52 PM)rpg Wrote:  I just read the law and the whole porn industry should be shut down if they mean what they say. Get the fireworks started. Kamala Harris was in on this bullshit and I hope it trashes her presidential chances.

For those of us who came of age in the time of high speed internet:

Time to stock up on DVDs!

Post: #36

(04-07-2018 09:30 PM)rpg Wrote:  Hopefully a judge rules this grab unconstitutional or it will suffer mission creep and they will start grabbing craigslist and other stuff. Then where the hell will I find my next shitbox car for a daily driver.

Terminology creep always comes first.

And so trafficking means any man anywhere near a skank or in her address book.

And if you point this out in polite company you will be accused of being pro sex slavery.

It started with feminism, and to paraphrase the old line about antisemitism:

A misogynist used to be someone who doesn't like women. Now it's someone who women don't like.

Rape used to have specific a legal definition. Now it seems to encompass female dissatisfaction on any level.

Domestic Violence can now mean disagreeing with women (gaslighting) or failing to give them money when so directed.

No need to elaborate on what hate speech now means. Just pick any thread in certain forums.

Tangential but related.

Got a new one for you guys. We all know that grooming started off as a useful term to describe the way pedos manipulate children.

By the law of terminology creep, that means any adult male talking to anyone under 18 for any reason.

Saw in the Daily Mail they took it to the next level.

Psych Professor is accused publicly of grooming an adult. The short end of the wedge is that the person had cancer, so, to question this new bit of anti-moral sophistry is to be in favor of abusing the ill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...t-sex.html

Quote:Emanuele Castano, 43, was accused by a 23-year-old The New School student identified in court papers as Jane Doe of grooming her for sex while she was still recovering from cancer.

It won't be long until grooming can apply to any conversation between consenting adults, and it will still have the pedo stink to it.

Soon there will be no necessary connection between a word and a reality at all. All that will matter is who is saying it.

And Lauren Hill will be right. Inadvertently, retroactively, but if it works for rape, it will work for songs. Everything will be everything.

If you have the social credentials, whatever you say goes, and asking whether or not it makes sense will be [pick your accusation.]

Post: #37

One thing is obvious. Congress is the biggest bunch of incompetent retards in our country. Also the most pathetic white knight cuck simps. They know absolutely nothing about women and I hope they enjoy the toe tapping in public restrooms. May they all get warts on their tongues from sucking dick.

Post: #38

Looks like the Texas Attorney General is not fucking around with Backpage:

Quote:Backpage.com Pleads Guilty to Human Trafficking in Texas

Thursday, April 12, 2018 – Austin

Attorney General Ken Paxton announced today that his office’s prosecution of Backpage.com has resulted in the company pleading guilty to human trafficking in Texas and its CEO Carl Ferrer pleading guilty to money laundering. This comes less than a week after the attorney general’s office assisted the Department of Justice with permanently shutting down the website.

Ferrer will be sentenced to up to five years in prison once he’s fulfilled the terms of his plea agreement with Attorney General Paxton’s office. His cooperation in the ongoing investigation into Backpage could lead to other criminal charges against individuals associated with the company.

As the largest online sex trafficking marketplace in the world, Backpage facilitated the sex trafficking of innocent women and children through sites it ran for 943 locations in 97 countries and 17 languages. It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

“Taking down Backpage and obtaining a criminal conviction for the company and its CEO represents a significant victory in the fight against human trafficking in Texas and around the world,” Attorney General Paxton said. “I want to thank the Attorney General of California, the U.S. Department of Justice, federal law enforcement officials, Nueces County District Attorney Mark Gonzalez, and the prosecutors and law enforcement in my office for their outstanding collaborative work on this investigation and prosecution.”

In October 2016, Attorney General Paxton’s Law Enforcement Division arrested Ferrer in Houston. It also executed a search warrant on the Dallas headquarters of Backpage, uncovering evidence that was critical in building a case against Ferrer and the company.

Attorney General Paxton has made combating human trafficking a top priority. Two years ago, he launched his office’s Human Trafficking and Transnational/Organized Crime Section, which prosecutes human traffickers around the state of Texas. Earlier this year, he unveiled a powerful training video to teach Texans how to spot and report suspected human trafficking activity.

President Trump yesterday signed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 into law, making it easier for law enforcement to take legal action against any websites that enable human trafficking.

Here's his video statement:

Post: #39

^^^^^

"Attorney General Ken Paxton announced today that his office’s prosecution of Backpage.com has resulted in the company pleading guilty to human trafficking in Texas and its CEO Carl Ferrer pleading guilty to money laundering. This comes less than a week after the attorney general’s office assisted the Department of Justice with permanently shutting down the website.

Ferrer will be sentenced to up to five years in prison once he’s fulfilled the terms of his plea agreement with Attorney General Paxton’s office. His cooperation in the ongoing investigation into Backpage could lead to other criminal charges against individuals associated with the company."

Looks like the CEO took a plea bargain deal. They probably threatened him with more legal action than he could ever deal with if he didn't. He'll probably serve less than the allotted five years when all is said and done.

"Human trafficking" charges are now what they hit men with for any facilitation of prostitution. It's a bigger-sounding word -- and a much bigger charge.

The Feds, I assume, wanted to seize Backpage's assets. Plus, John and Cindy McCain were very involved in getting FOSTA/SESTA passed and apparently held a vendetta against the owners. They previously ran an investigative site called Front Page Confidential that did hit pieces on McCain.

Anyone thinking that this marks the end of this should think again. There is a crazed pack of "abolitionists" who are looking for the next battle. According to what I've read on Twitter, they're coming for the porn sites next. Porn sites facilitate prostitution, after all, since the women are being paid to have sex.

As of this writing, the following sites have gone dark: Backpage.com, USA Sex Guide, The Erotic Review, and the "theraputic" massage section of Craigslist. These sites have been around for decades -- but "trafficking" only apparently became a major concern recently.

Why were they oblivious to this in, say, 2004? Could it be that the gov't is inventing the problem, possibly for financial motives? I'd say yes. I don't pretend to know what's really behind this, but the paltry actual number of women truly "trafficked" (as opposed to voluntarily hooking) makes me think there is an ulterior motive here.

#metoo has come back to bite feminists in the ass. While #metoo didn't directly affect the passing of SESTA, it created massive paranoia about sex and the sexual abuse of women by men. It whipped up hysteria and that's why so many politicians climbed on board to sign it.

Now the feminists are bemoaning all the sex workers who have to take to the dangerous streets to earn a living, since they can't screen clients online. Twitter is already reporting one missing sex worker.

Moral: If you don't want grand, sweeping legislation passed that assumes all men are "sexual predators" ready to exploit women, then maybe you shouldn't foster online movements that claim men are predators.

The demi monde is often a bellwether for mainstream society. If feminists are crying over #metoo wrecking the business of "women of the night," wait till they see what it's going to do women in the mainstream in the coming months and years. Thanks to #metoo, women have made themselves into human kryptonite -- and will find themselves out of more and more jobs, because of both paranoia and misguided "good intentions."

Post: #40

(04-12-2018 08:12 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Moral: If you don't want grand, sweeping legislation passed that assumes all men are "sexual predators" ready to exploit women, then maybe you shouldn't foster online movements that claim men are predators.

Look, the devil is in the details. I'm not necessarily against sex services being legalized, but if what they allege is true, Backpage was actually involved in laundering money, helping guide people into posting ads for underage prostitution, and were 70+ percent of the child trafficking being reported. That's pretty significant if true and has nothing to do with your argument (again, if true).

Post: #41

If they shut down the porn sites I will be very happy. 10s of millions of men currently pussifying themselves through masturbation are not something the system will want to deal with when they go on forced nofap.

Shut that shit down.

Post: #42

What’s likely is they seized all of the guy’s assets, and then handed him a stack of charges that could have landed him in prison for the rest of his life. He’s no got little to no ability to fight back and then the prosecutor hands him a deal where he’ll get 5 years, possible minimum security, and maybe he can be out in 3.

Backpage was implicated in 73% of trafficking cases? That’s great. They should have let them stick around until they could be implicated in 90% of trafficking cases. In fact, the more shit that gets channeled through the place, the better I say. It makes it easier for law enforcement to keep tabs on stuff. Now their jobs are that much harder.

Post: #43

(04-12-2018 08:19 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  If they shut down the porn sites I will be very happy. 10s of millions of men currently pussifying themselves through masturbation are not something the system will want to deal with when they go on forced nofap.

Shut that shit down.

Why do you care? Did it ever occur to you that 10s of millions of men are stepping aside and taking themselves out of competition for resources that you may want? You can’t espouse the virtues of being a man while denying other men the right to pursue their goals. And if some men wish to jerk off and be nonproductive, who cares? How does this harm you?

Post: #44

(04-12-2018 08:19 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  If they shut down the porn sites I will be very happy. 10s of millions of men currently pussifying themselves through masturbation are not something the system will want to deal with when they go on forced nofap.

Shut that shit down.

If you want to shut down sites because you claim they're bad for people, then you just set the precedent for feminists to close this forum.

I can guarantee you that in a court of law (or public opinion) the RVF's alleged "hatred of women" and "misogyny" would anger a lot more people than thoughts of guys jerking off. They'd claim we're bad for women and younger men who we could influence.

This is the United States where we can to have stupid ideas and we get to do things that are bad for us.

I'd also argue that Internet porn isn't bad at all, since several outlets (including the liberal Slate) have linked the rise in online porn to the plummeting sexual assault numbers. I'm old enough to remember the pre-online-porn '80s, when your girlfriend getting raped was a real worry. I'd prefer not to have to worry about that again, and would rather have future criminals rubbing one out and then going to sleep instead of stalking parking garages and the like.

As with #metoo, the removal of online porn would create a lot of unintended consequences and I don't think they'll be good. Online porn, by the way, has been a thing long before we had a soyboy culture. Blame the schools and the media for that one.

Post: #45

(04-12-2018 09:00 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 08:19 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  If they shut down the porn sites I will be very happy. 10s of millions of men currently pussifying themselves through masturbation are not something the system will want to deal with when they go on forced nofap.

Shut that shit down.

Why do you care? Did it ever occur to you that 10s of millions of men are stepping aside and taking themselves out of competition for resources that you may want? You can’t espouse the virtues of being a man while denying other men the right to pursue their goals. And if some men wish to jerk off and be nonproductive, who cares? How does this harm you?

Very good point, as well as the others that followed. I take it back.

Post: #46

Has anyone heard of a verifiable instance of "Child trafficking". I haven't. We've heard of every other sort of child abuse, Jerry Sandusky, etc. But I don't believe Backpage, The Erotic Review, etc were into children. I think what's going on here is three very powerful groups got in bed: 1) Women's groups who hate that easy sex takes men off the marriage market, 2) Christian nuts who think you'll burn in hell for looking at porn, and 3) silicon valley technocrats who want to reign in free speech.

I really should have stayed in europe, where prostitution is legal, safe and cheap. For now.

Post: #47

OK, I think I just realize why this subject is bothering me so much. This time it's personal.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, the government did everything it could to stamp out gambling, specifically the proto-lottery system called "numbers running." They sold it as a moral panic. They also had no qualms about inventing charges to put a lot of my people -- Italian-Americans -- in prison for being involved with numbers running.

So, they came up with nebulous concepts like "racketeering" when they couldn't find real charges. The public cheered as a lot of men went to prison. This caused a lot of prejudice towards Italians for being "immoral" and involved with "crime." (OK, granted, Italian-Americans WERE involved with crime in the larger sense, but I'm specifically talking about numbers running here.)

Then what happened? By the 1970s, the individual states took over numbers running and gave it glossy-sounding names like "The Lotto" and "The Lottery."

Suddenly, the exact actions the government had deemed immoral and illegal were now legal -- because the government was able to profit. Nowadays they, practically shove the Lottery down our throats.

My guess is something of the sort is happening with Backpage.com and company. As The Father pointed out, the Feds haven't produced any Sandusky-like scandals involving "child trafficking." The government must see dollar signs and want a cut, or the departments are manufacturing crises to keep their budgets big.

And just in case anyone is wondering, I personally HATE gambling and have never bought a Lotto ticket in my life. I'm just pointing out how the government shapes people's morality -- and how the sheeple don't stop to think how something can be "immoral and illegal (OMG!)" in one year, but perfectly fine a few years later. Or vice-versa.

Post: #48

(04-12-2018 10:31 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  My guess is something of the sort is happening with Backpage.com and company. As The Father pointed out, the Feds haven't produced any Sandusky-like scandals involving "child trafficking." The government must see dollar signs and want a cut, or the departments are manufacturing crises to keep their budgets big.

And just in case anyone is wondering, I personally HATE gambling and have never bought a Lotto ticket in my life. I'm just pointing out how the government shapes people's morality -- and how the sheeple don't stop to think how something can be "immoral and illegal (OMG!)" in one year, but perfectly fine a few years later. Or vice-versa.

I don't see BuyAWhore.Gov opening any time soon. I think this is just Sleepy Jeff Sessions looking for something to do with his time, because prosecuting corruption in Washington takes work and might interrupt his nap.

Post: #49

28 sexually exploited children rescue and 474 arrested, Feb. 2017

http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arrested-...tion-lasd/

84 children rescued and 120 arrested, Oct. 2017

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/84-...-s-n812156

That particular bust was spread across several states and involved cooperation with authorities from Canada, the UK, Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines.

Speaking of the Philippines, they had their largest child porn bust every back in May 2017, which also included rescuing some of the children who had been used in the material. That bust was based on info provided by the US.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-12/af...ng/8521820

Though Backpage wasn't involved in this, there's a reason the suit specifies 17 countries and not just the US (and there's a reason he plead guilty so quickly).

Here's another one. Sacramento pilot receives life sentence for child sex trafficking offenses, Feb. 2018

http://wtkr.com/2018/01/24/california-pi...in-prison/

Much of the worst child trafficking occurs outside of the US, but these days Western men paying for videos or livestreams of children being abused is a huge problem because it then creates an even bigger market for trafficking.

Personally, I could give a fuck if some 30-year-old hooker feels unsafe if it makes it harder for 5-year-old girls to be raped. I'll also take prostitution being illegal over the thousands of little girls "groomed" in the UK or the mass sexual assaults going on liberal Germany, etc.

Adult, non-forced prostitution has existed long before the internet came about and will do just fine without it. In reality, the fact that it's now so easy and less risky is why this #ExposetheSponsor, SeekingArrangement, etc. shit is becoming so out of control.

Post: #50

Were western men paying for livestreams of children being abused on backpage?

Would the rotherdam sexual abuse have been stopped by banning prostitution, when there are already laws against sexual abuse on the books that weren't enforced? Will making life more difficult for hookers in the US somehow protect german women from being assaulted by rapefugees on the street?

What on Earth are you talking about?