This site contains copyrighted material which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of police corruption, human rights, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes. The public has a right to know about dangerous predators with a badge in their communities.
Recently, one of our long time sex worker rights activists, Carol Leigh (who coined the term "sex worker" years ago) came across this amazing article from a century ago, on the Columbia University website under 'gender and sexuality' archives. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" is very appropriate here.
Published June, 1913, in The English Review (as in "UK"), and written by Teresa Billington-Greig (click on link to view article as pdf), this article could have been written in the present time to describe the current situation in the US and the rest of the world. Only the names have changed- those who crusaded against prostitution back then, are all dead. Unfortunately the crusade and the lies told by today's abolitionists are exactly the same.
Then as now, it is a crusade fueled by sexual hysteria and promoted by the radical left/ progressives and religious conservatives who don't give a fig about sex workers (or prostitutes, as we were called back then) and are only concerned with promoting their false 'trafficking' narrative to impose their moral and/ or social agenda on the rest of us. The lies the anti- prostitution groups told one hundred years ago and tell now in 2014 continue to harm those whom these abolitionists claim to want to help.
The lies haven't changed one bit. They are the same old tired fabrications created by people who have a limited imagination but an unlimited capacity for telling tall tales without a shred of evidence to back up their claims; horrific stories of virginal young women kidnapped in broad daylight and forced into brothels. Back then, it was the 'motor-car' which helped facilitate the alleged kidnappings and 'trappings'- but today, it is the internet- and 'craigslist,' 'backpage' and all the other social media sites which makes it possible for sex workers to advertise their services- and which are deemed to be the facilitators of 'sex trafficking.'
The author has a very colorful and charming way of calling the "alarmist campaigners" liars- she says "The truth is that the structure erected by the neuropaths* and prudesis reduced to ashes. They are convicted of getting legislation by false pretences. These dabblers in debauchery by word of mouth have given us a shocking exhibition of unlicensed slander." [to which we say a hearty "AMEN, sister, AMEN!"] [*neuropath was another word for 'psychopaths' and 'sociopaths' - which is an excellent way to describe abolitionists past and present! Two such abolitionists immediately come to mind who, in my opinion, so closely resemble this description- Melissa Farley and Donna Hughes- our very own dear American neuropaths, as well as the recently exposed Cambodian 'victim pimp' Somaly Mam being another for whom this is, again in my own personal opinion, an accurate adjective; and not to forget Bradley Myles and his ever inaccurate count of 'potential victims referenced' phone calls taken by his faith based Polaris Project which brought him and his toadies over $7 MILLION in 2012... or Dominique Roe- Sepowitz of the also faith based re-education camp at Project ROSE... there are SO MANY of these neuropaths it is difficult to remember all their names and tax-payer funded rescue and re-educate pogroms...]
Says Ms. Billington- Greig:
"To all the previous evidence we may add these statistics, the weight of which is entirely against the alarmist campaigners. Indeed, they are now left the choice of two unpleasant admissions: either the Act has failed to achieve the chief purpose for which it was passed, or there was no need to pass it!"
To the foregoing weighty pronouncements we must add the equally weighty opinion of Assistant Commissioner F. S. Bullock, the Central Authority in England for the Repression of the White Slave Traffic. I was referred to him by Mr. Arthur Lee, M.P. when I asked for authentication of statements made in the Commons. I am afraid that there is little support for Mr. Lee's views in Mr. Bullock's reply to my questions.
He says: "I cannot call to mind a single case of the forcible trapping of a girl or a woman by drugs, false messages, or physical force during the last ten years that has been authenticated or proved. I should say such cases were very rare indeed .... The average number of cases of procuration in London is about three per annum, and none of these are really cases of trapping."
["trapping" was what these same 'alarmist campaigners' now call "trafficking"]
Admittedly, Ms. Billington-Grieg does call prostitution "evil"- but then, this was a time in our history when ALL types of sex outside of marriage were considered 'evil' - including masturbation. Fighting the 'scourge' of masturbation was a companion battle against all sorts of 'immoral' and 'anti-social' sex acts and interracial relationships. The puritan/moralists and the feminists/ progressives certainly had their hands full fighting sin and keeping the poor in their place! And both groups of moral/social busybodies were also fighting to prohibit alcohol- to mold America into their dream utopia - where women remained at home taking care of their family, and men neither drank, or smoked or committed adultery... or masturbated in private. Everyone would be as pure as Ivory soap...
But regardless of how she personally viewed prostitution, she and her colleagues understood that the crusade to 'eliminate' or abolish prostitution was not ever going to be successful, and that by making up statistics without evidence and creating false stories about an endless number of women and girls 'trapped' into prostitution was NOT a way to help ANYONE!
"The two police court workers approached are entirely without knowledge of this phase of evil. Mr. Thomas Holmes of the Howard Association, and twenty-three years a Police Court Missionary, replies with "Never" twice repeated. He writes; 'You will notice that I say that I have never known of a girl being trapped. I have never even heard of one, excepting through common report. I have had nearly thirty years' connection with the police courts; the prisons and the sweated women of London, and my own conviction is that the matter is grossly exaggerated.'
Mrs. Eleanor Carey, sixteen years Police Court Missionary and Probation Officer at Thames Police Court, is equally emphatic. She says: 'In every case known to me of a girl being dragged down to life in a brothel, she has been a willing though blind and misguided victim .... I have never found reason to believe that any girl is ever forcibly carried off.' The statistics kindly supplied by a number of Chief Constables complete the destruction of this campaign of sedulously cultivated sexual hysterics..."
Oh, if only cops were as "honest" (sarcasm) now as they were back then... but now, unfortunately, the federal government is in on the "campaign of sedulously cultivated sexual hysterics" 'anti- trafficking' scheme in a GRAND way and offers funding to law enforcement agencies to keep up the destructive and fraudulent campaign- the 21st century War on Whores. [Which is why Denver CO. Vice Lieutenant Aaron Sanchez so earnestly says"Prostitutes are not friendly. It’s not like you’re talking to a child-abuse victim or a fifteen-year-old sex assault victim who wants to cry out and wants to explain what happened or is just scared. These girls just flat out say, ‘Nope, that’s NOT what’s happening.’ We have to help them realize they are victims"- because otherwise we don't get all that federal grant money to spend investigating whores, which is much safer for us than looking for REAL criminals such as the hundreds of thousands rapists whose victims reported the crimes and have asked for help but we just don't have the resources or inclination to pursue them!]
Apparently NONE of these prostitution abolitionists are aware of the past failure of this same idiotic crusade, because if they are aware of it and still consider it within the realm of possibility to 'eradicate all commercial sex' through their absurd 'End the Demand' campaign, we would have to consider them to be the epitome of insanity as defined by the brilliant Albert Einstein: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." It is very disheartening to think that our governments and media outlets are being run by people who, in centuries past, would have been locked up in an asylum for being too dangerous to live among us. Nicholas Kristof, are you listening?
I cleaned it up (by removing the black down the center of each scanned page and highlighted the important quotes. There are a few pages missing from this document- 433 to 438- which may have been deliberately left out if they were ads. If anyone knows where we can find a complete version, please contact me normajeanalmodovar [@] gmail.com
Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 09:53
"FOR OUR OWN GOOD" - RAD FEMS SAY HOOKERS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Written by Norma Jean Almodovar
Sunday, 06 April 2014 11:02
IF LOOKS COULD KILL.... Illinois State Attorney General Lisa Madigan (front) with unknown arrogant rad-fem behind her- sneering at the 'handful' of sex workers who claim to have rights... [Chandler West/For Sun-Times Media]
The look on their faces says it all-"HOW DARE PROSTITUTES DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS UNLESS THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THEIR VICTIMHOOD AND HELP US ERADICATE ALL COMMERCIAL SEX...."
They belong to the sisterhood of prostitute haters:
"Prostitutes are often the target for cultural anxieties about sex: a kind of kneejerk brutality against them has become acceptable" As Julie Burchill said so lovelingly "When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women."[ 60] You think those two decidedly radical feminists are really concerned about the well being of sex workers? This is an all out war on sex work and sex workers- and our well being be damned! They would just as soon see us all raped and murdered by cops and serial killers... that's how much they do this 'for our own good...'!
FYI: The article below was written in 1999, before the rabid feminist and religious conservative 'anti- trafficking' crusade had blossomed into the all out war on whores that the media and politicians so heartily embrace today. Now the world is flooded with 'victim pimp' organizations, each vying for the hundreds of millions of dollars that the US Government doles out to those who promise to 'eradicate' sex slavery from the face of the earth, regardless of the consequences to those so called sex slaves who refuse to be categorized as victims.
As many people are just discovering, there are a number of hideous tactics that are used to force 'sex slaves' to realize they are victims and do not have any rights. And any organization which disrespects the collective will of the anti- traffickers and fights for our rights, is to be protested and condemned. On April 4, 2014, The Chicago Sun Times published an article critical of Amnesty International because they dare to support the decriminalization of consenting adult commercial sex. This did not please the rad fems at all. The event was the annual Amnesty International Human Rights Conference held in Chicago, and the headline of the article read "Protesters Rally Against Sex Work Discussion" (apparently the abolitionists are against even a discussion about the consequences of their hideous abolitionist agenda), and the sex workers (as we call ourselves) at the event were given a patronizing and condescending mention.
"On one side, such heavy hitters as Attorney General Lisa Madigan stood with former prostitutes and others protesting an Amnesty International USA discussion on decriminalizing sex work.
On the other side, a handful of current prostitutes, sex workers as they call themselves, stood in demonstration of support for the possible policy shift by the human rights group."
There they are, the poor pitiful sex workers, only a 'handful' because there aren't very many willing to be outed and possibly be targeted for arrest/ rescue- but who cares about them anyway? The media has the heavy hitters out there, demanding that Amnesty International understand that prostitutes simply DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS, so that there is no need for AI to support decriminalization. "“It is an ironic situation when we find ourselves protesting an organization that for many years has been at the global forefront of the human rights movement,” Madigan, whose office works to combat child pornography and sexual trafficking, said to cheers. "
Indeed it is ironic that a state attorney general, Lisa Madigan, would claim to be 'fighting for the rights of women and children' all the while knowing that cops are being allowed to have sex with alleged victims in order to rescue them, and that there are far more cops involved in sexually abusing minors AND adult women that go without punishment. She admits to the fact that she is protesting an organization that IS fighting for the rights of a very marginalized group of people, indicating that she, like her condescending cronies in government, the media and elsewhere are of the opinion that 'hookers don't have rights...' Why is it that when they want to stir up the emotions of the general public, their battle cry is "Even One Is Too Many..." but when a handful of sex workers who have put themselves at risk of being arrested for BEING sex workers, the rad fems argue "Prostitution is rarely a choice..." based on nothing other than their own ignorant opinion? Even if it was 'rarely a choice' (which sex workers beg to differ), shouldn't those who DO choose sex work have RIGHTS? Why is ONE NOT ENOUGH to have his/her rights protected by an organization which fights for the rights of everyone, including the "ONE"?
Comments recently added to this article are in brackets and text is red.
"For Their Own Good"
The Consequences of Prostitution Laws as Enforced by Cops, Politicians, and Judges
by Norma Jean Almodovar
[This essay may be cited as Norma Jean Almodovar, “For Their Own Good: The Results of the Prostitution Laws as Enforced by Cops, Politicians, and Judges,” in Liberty for Women, ed. Wendy McElroy (Chicago: The Independent Institute, 2002), pp. 71–87.
An earlier version of this essay was published in Hastings Women’s Law Journal in 1999. ]
On May 25, 1998, headlines in the Los Angeles Daily News declared, “Mexico blasts in rape response”:
"Sexism and apathy have hindered Mexican police investigations into the cases of more than 100 women raped and killed in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, the federal human rights panel said Sunday.
The frequently grisly assaults, dating to 1993, have terriﬁed residents of the industrial city south of El Paso, Texas. They fear a serial killer—or even copycat killers—may be on the loose. . . .
In an open letter Sunday to Chihuahua state ofﬁcials, the National Human Rights Commission said the assumption by local ofﬁcials that some of the victims were prostitutes had slowed investigations into the killings."
Anyone concerned with human rights should be outraged as they read the preceding article. It is unconscionable that there are law enforcement agents anywhere in the world who do not investigate the rapes and murders of some of its citizens because they may have been prostitutes. We, in the United States, are of course more concerned about our marginalized citizens and have passed laws against prostitution so we can protect our women from exploitation.... [which works so well that we have eliminated all prostitution in the US...NOT!]
The laws that prohibit prostitution are enacted to protect our “basic human rights” and “preserve our dignity” for “our own good,” and to prevent women from being exploited, are they not?
That is the purpose of the laws, asserts Dr. Janice G. Raymond, co-executive director of “Coalition Against Trafﬁcking in Women.” In the Report to the Special Rapporteur she states:
"There may be a small number of women that ‘choose’ to enter prostitution. We do not doubt that some women say that they have chosen it, especially in public contexts orchestrated by the sex industry. In the same way, some people choose to take dangerous drugs such as heroin, under conditions they did not choose originally and might not choose now, if offered something different. [we note that taking drugs, whether or not one purchased drugs or obtained them for free is not legal, and is not exactly the same as being paid for providing pleasure, which one can provide if one does not charge for the services. Also, drug use, like other vices, should not be prohibited to adults as they result in the same police corruption that results from the prohibition of commercial sex]
However, even when some people choose to take dangerous drugs, we still recognize that drug use is harmful. In this situation, it is harm to the person, not the consent of the person, that is the governing standard. We cannot allow the sex industry, or even non-governmental organizations, to rationalize the existence of prostitution based on this opportunistic use of consent and deny the harm to women and girls. . . . [but being arrested and/or raped by a cop is not harmful to women and girls? and what of the hundreds of victims of pedophile cops, preachers, priests etc. - are those girls not harmed by such actions and ought we criminalize all professions which might lead a person to become a victim???? Should be not ban the Explorer Scouts Program which is where many a law enforcement agent finds his victims?]
While emphasizing the harm that is done to actual women and children in prostitution, we must also note that the sexual exploitation of prostitution is harmful to all women. The sexual violation of any women is the sexual degradation of all women. . . . Prostitution is a practice that violates the human dignity and integrity guaranteed to all persons in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration proclaims that all human persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Any form of sexual exploitation, including prostitution, abrogates this human dignity." [ And why can't individual women speak for themselves? I found far less exploitation in sex work than I did working for the LAPD... why doesn't MY experience count? These vicious abolitionists do not view sex workers as people or as individuals- and they scream and yell that men treat us as 'sex objects' - even as they treat us as 'victim objects' who have no right to speak for ourselves...]
But what about women who, ungrateful to their more knowledgeable feminist sisters such as Dr. Raymond, do not accept the premise that their work in prostitution is a violation of their human dignity? As Broward County, Florida, NOW chapter president Shayna Moss so poignantly interpolates in the article below, it is the opinion of some feminists that prostitutes lose all rights if we continue to allow ourselves to be exploited.
"She calls herself “Jane Roe II” and says she was a prostitute for the rich and famous. Now the Palm Beach County woman wants . . . to make prostitution legal. . . .
She cites Roe vs. Wade and argues; If a woman has the right to an abortion, should not she also have the right to sell her body for sex? . . .
Asked about Jane Roe II’s argument linking abortion and prostitution, Shayna Moss, president of the Broward County, Fla. chapter of the National Organization for Women, says, "I don’t see a connection between the two. I don’t think a hooker has rights." [click on image to view full size)
It is widely accepted then, in reputable circles, that prostitutes are without rights or standing before the law. It is therefore not much of a stretch to conclude that our deaths are meaningless and it is not necessary to expend the energy to investigate our murders. The following quotes make it chillingly clear that those of us who choose for whatever reason to engage in commercial sex are no longer considered a part of the human race.
"These were “misdemeanor murders,” biker women and hookers . . . sometimes we’d call them “NHI”—no humans involved."
"Since 1985 at least 45 women have been sexually assaulted and brutally murdered in San Diego County. These women, designated by law enforcement as prostitutes, drug addicts and transients, have been associated with the police term, “NHI—no humans involved.” NHI is an in house rhetorical discounting of crimes against individuals from marginalized sectors of our society. This nonhuman classiﬁcation, as well as the personal involvement of police ofﬁcers with a number of the victims, has hindered public awareness and a full-scale investigation of these murders."
If this is truly the conviction of our own law enforcement agencies and feminist upholders of our human rights, how could we expect our neighbors to the south to be more empathetic than we are toward raped and murdered women who were probably nothing more than prostitutes? The Mexican police who appeared negligent in their duties toward the one hundred or so women raped and killed in the border city of Ciucad Juarez are looking less and less culpable and barbaric, and more like our very own police.
Articles chronicling police abuses toward prostitutes appear with alarming frequency. If viewed individually, it is easy to dismiss each abuse as an aberration, perhaps out of character for the police. However when viewed with other such incidents occurring nationally, it is impossible not to see a pattern of abuse. And it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the laws that are supposed to protect women from the “exploitation” and degradation of prostitution are abused by those who are supposed to uphold them.
Exactly what behavior is requisite to nullify a woman’s rights so she is no longer considered “human”? In most states, prostitution is “any lewd act for money or other consideration.” “Lewd” is deﬁned as the touching of male genitalia and buttocks and female genitalia and breasts for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification. Early American case law had a much broader deﬁnition of prostitution. A woman offering her body for sexual intercourse for hire or for indiscriminate sexual intercourse without hire was also legally a prostitute (or non-human without any rights).
Of course it is no longer an exclusively female crime; men can and are being prosecuted for prostitution, although the number of arrests of male prostitutes is disproportionately less than female prostitutes. There are several reasons for this. First, because it is considered less of a social problem than female prostitution, and second, because male police ofﬁcers are reluctant to pose as homosexuals and potential customers of male hustlers. These law enforcement agents have no similar compunctions about posing as customers of female prostitutes and, in some cases, having sex with them prior to arresting them.
Unquestionably there is a split in the women’s movement over the issue of prostitution and pornography. Some feminists are even willing to abridge the First Amendment in order to prevent the production of sexually explicit material. Since prostitution is already illegal in most states, there is even a movement to link the constitutionally protected speech of pornography with illegal prostitution in order to prohibit it. There are some very angry women who truly believe that it is acceptable to abrogate the freedom of other women to prevent a greater harm to women as a whole.
Yet these very same women champion a woman’s right to “choice” as long it is abortion that is being discussed. If indeed a woman has a right to “choice,” there must be some fundamental reason that one can make that claim. Without a sound underlying premise or axiom for one’s postulation-argument, no claim of rights can be established which cannot be invalidated by another group making its own proclamation.
Prostitution (and pornography) must be considered the same issue for feminists as abortion. It is the right to choose. The right for a woman to control her own sexuality, with whom she will have sex, when, and under what circumstances.
The concept of “self-ownership” coincides with the concept of liberty (ostensibly the underlying principle in the formation of our country), and seems to ﬁt the bill as a suitable foundation for making such an argument. If you “own” your own body, certainly you can choose to do what you will with it, and since slavery was abolished in this country, no individual or group can claim that somebody’s body (life) arbitrarily belongs to anyone else.
If one claims the “self-ownership” premise to establish the argument that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, then the perimeters of the concept “choice” cannot be limited to abortion. Either an individual has a right to “choice,” deﬁned as the act of “deciding,” which includes any and all options—good, bad, moral or immoral—available to an individual, or the claim to the right to choice is baseless and therefore meaningless.
If pro-choice advocates claim the right to choose, based on no other premise than they have the right to choose, it is equally acceptable for anti-abortion advocates to state that no such rights exist and pass laws that support their assertion. Some feminists maintain that pornography and prostitution are degrading and harmful to all women and justify their desire to abolish these things as a means to protect women from being exploited. If such arguments to prohibit the choices voluntarily made by some women have any validity at all, then anti-abortion activists could assert the same claims regarding the degrading and emotionally deleterious effects that abortion has on women and demand that women be protected from such harm through the prohibition of abortion.
I cannot deny that some women and girls—perhaps even quite a few—are in prostitution against their will. Further, some prostitutes may ﬁnd the work emotionally taxing or disagreeable and may have violent confrontations with their clients or their pimps. Many of these lamentable conditions are shared by women who are in violent noncommercial relationships and abusive marriages; those who are forced to work in sweatshops or to clean toilets; those who are sexually exploited by their boss; and generally anyone who is in a personal relationship or working situation which is not of their choosing. Nevertheless it would be imprudent to suggest that society resolve the unpleasantness of any coercive situation by prohibiting the basic activity such as marriage or relationships, clothing manufacturing, janitorial professions, or the coed workplace. [In 2013, the World Health Organization reported that one out of three women worldwide are victims of violence- primarily at the hands of their husbands and boyfriends... that means there are hundreds of millions of women who are victims of violence within marriage, yet there is no concerted effort to abolish marriage, and in fact, the ability to marry someone of the same gender is a hot issue world wide as gays and lesbians fight for their right to marry the one they love... even though we have very strong evidence of the harm that comes from being in a marital relationship!]
The threat of arrest and all that accompanies it, including extortion and forced sex with the police, is more emotionally damaging than the exchange of money for otherwise lawful activity. So long as the sex is consensual it should not matter to anyone outside the relationship how many times the sexual activity occurs, or with how many sexual partners, or for whatever mutually agreed upon price. If mutual agreement is not present in any relationship, there already exists an abundance of applicable laws specifically relating to coercion. Laws against prostitution are extraneous and do not protect women from anything.
Since the laws prohibiting prostitution were ﬁrst enacted at the turn of the twentieth century, there has been a collusion between the police ofﬁcers, judges, politicians, pimps, and madams, in which the enforcement of the law depends upon the cooperation of the players. In exchange for extorted sex, money, and information from the prostitutes or their agents, the police and the courts will turn a blind eye to the illegal activities. [ here is a partial list of cops who use the laws to extort, rape, pimp and murder prostitutes- because they can... "Part V- Cops who solicit, rape, extort, pimp and murder prostitutes"]
For some women failure to continue to cooperate with the police can result in an early death, as seems to be the case with Donna Gentile, a street prostitute and police informant in San Diego. Gentile grew weary of being extorted by the cops and blew the whistle on those who demanded free sex and information from her. For her efforts the cops who had been involved in the sex and extortion scheme were ﬁred and demoted, and her body was later found beaten and strangled; the killer or killers have not been caught. Others, like Alex, the Beverly Hills Madam, maintain their lucrative business with the full knowledge and consent of the LAPD, as long as they remain informants. In Madam Alex’s case, when she outlived her usefulness to the police after twenty years, she was arrested. However her defense was her status as a valuable police informant, and with the witnesses and evidence she produced for the judge, she successfully avoided going to prison under the mandatory sentencing law.
He fails to mention that indiscriminate sexual intercourse without the exchange of money or other consideration is not a crime, nor is arranging it against the law. One can conclude that multiple indiscriminate sexual encounters have no signiﬁcant impact upon women as long as no money is exchanged. Shame and degradation are only possible results for the victim brazen enough to charge for it. If a woman gives it away for free, there is no problem and no crime. The government cares not if a woman loses her reputation. Let her charge for sex and the government will be right there to take the money away from her in the form of ﬁnes and jail sentences and give her a criminal record to boot. This will absolve the shame for her acts?
And though the law is gender neutral, it is almost always the woman who is prosecuted, ﬁned, and imprisoned. Here feminists agree with us; male prostitutes do not get arrested in the same numbers or with the frequency and intensity that female prostitutes do. They pat us on the head and insist that they do not want the police to continue to arrest us, only our customers. This proposal is so patently absurd that one wonders if its promoters could have given any thought to the obvious ﬂaws of such a policy. [this is the so called 'Swedish Model" which many countries are being coerced into adopting, because the rad fems and religious zealots know where the politicians' 'skeletons' are buried- men such as former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, whose presidential ambitions were dashed when he was outed as a 'john' despite his vigorous crusade against prostitution/ sex trafficking when he was the NY State Attorney General. He was forced to resign but he was not charged with any crime despite the fact that he violated the very laws he enacted as well as the federal felony law- transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes- the Mann Act...]
If police are expected to arrest every customer, the question arises, how would this be possible? The police have not yet been successful in arresting and incarcerating every prostitute (to prevent them from being exploited). This is surprising considering all the legal advantages the police have with ever-increasing criminal penalties; major technological advances in surveillance; court decisions and laws which permit all manner of otherwise unconstitutional statutes; police behavior such as legalized entrapment and being able to arrest someone for merely possessing the “intent to commit prostitution”; and being legally permitted to have sex with a suspected prostitute.
There must be at least ten customers for every prostitute or a prostitute cannot earn a living. Multiplying the number of suspected prostitutes around the world by ten, throw in a few more one-time-only clients and without coming close to the actual number of customers, it becomes apparent that unless the police are willing to lock up any able-bodied male with a dollar in his pocket, it would not be possible to arrest every customer. Thus the police would be left in the untenable position of selectively enforcing the law.
Should police departments reallocate their scarce resources and, at the expense of domestic violence cases, rapes, assaults,
robberies, homicides, and other violent crimes, deploy ofﬁcers to arrest the nonviolent clients of prostitutes when no criminal complaint against them has been made?[in the years since I wrote this article, I have researched the number of reported violent rapes and sexual assaults, the number of arrests for violent rape and sexual assault AND the number of arrests of consenting adults for engaging in commercial sex over a period of 22 years, from 1991 to 2012, and the statistics, directly from the FBI Bureau of Justice Statistics website, are shocking. There were, according to the FBI, 5,666,556 reported violent rapes and sexual assaults- yet on average, the cops managed to arrest about 10% of alleged rapists. The number of arrested persons for rape, 617,336, leaves 5,049,220 victims without justice. Meanwhile, the cops arrested 1,814,725 ADULTS for prostitution. They also arrested 29,335 persons under 18 for prostitution. You can see more of these stats and the source links here: REFERENCE LIBRARY I 1981-2013 FBI DATA STATS SPREADSHEETS INFO PROSTITUTION ARRESTS. Apparently, radical feminists, religious conservatives and elected officials DO NOT CARE about real victims- their only concern is to impose their moral. social agenda on the bodies of adult women who CHOOSE to engage in sex work... what other conclusion could I come to?]
Apparently this is already the policy of the Los Angeles Police Department in regard to the arrest of prostitutes. Enforcement of the prostitution laws in Los Angeles has escalated since former Police Chief Willie Williams retired.
"In response to your article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the legalization of prostitution, I would like to address some issues that are of concern to me. . . .
It is estimated that 95 percent of all prostitutes who work in the City of Los Angeles are working for a pimp or madam. These individuals (the prostitutes) earn only a small part (approximately 20 percent) of the income from their prostitution activities. Those who exploit prostitutes prey on the young males and females who are vulnerable to the controlling inﬂuence of drugs and physical/sexual abuse. The average age of a person—male or female—who becomes involved in prostitution is 15 to 18 years old. By the time these individuals read the age of 25 to 30, they are of marginal use to their pimps or madams and are no longer employable. With no skills, they often become involved in other illegal activity or survive on the largess of society. . . .
It has been shown statistically that there is a direct correlation between prostitution and other serious crimes in areas where high levels of streetwalking prostitution are allowed to occur.
I would like to point out that laws prohibiting prostitution are not merely . . . to protect women from being exploited by pimps and panderers. Laws are generally enacted to deter people from certain behavior which society seems contrary to its quality of life. . . .
Whether one advocates arresting and incarcerating prostitutes to protect them from exploitation or because their conduct is offensive to society, the undeniable fact remains that the act itself is indicative of a greater problem that will not be solved by approving the practice." [nor will it ever be solved by arresting and prosecuting 'victims' or their non violent, non abusive clients, employers and associates, while ignoring the thousands of victims of violent rape and sexual assault, domestic violence, and the untold number of minors who are sexually exploited by someone whom they know and trust... such as their teachers and preachers and coaches and cops and priests and babysitters and parents...]
The sad thing is that none of the arguments justify the continued use of valuable scarce resources to arrest and incarcerate men and women who work as prostitutes of their clients, unless and until other crimes are committed which violate the rights of others through the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud.
Those prostitutes who are truly victims of violence within their work environment are denied access to help because they are outside the law. Furthermore, help is not available because the police department is too busy making prostitution arrests of women who are not 15 to 18; have no pimp; do not work on the streets; keep all the money they make (except for that which they have to pay to attorneys to defend themselves); do not have drug habits; are not abused by anyone other than the police ofﬁcers who demand sexual favors or money from them; and are not committing any other “criminal activity.”
Although the “estimates” and assertions made by Chief Parks are wholly and incredibly inaccurate, let us examine each as if it were true. These claims are fairly typical of all of the arguments made by those who do not want prostitution decriminalized.
First, Police Chief Parks alleges that “95 percent of all prostitutes who work in the City of Los Angeles are working for a pimp or madam.” [so if 100% of actors, actresses, writers, producers, directors, and others are working for an agent or manager who takes a huge chunk of their earnings, we must outlaw show business and any other profession where someone has an employer... right? Because having an employer is a crime? WTF?] Even if it were true that we all worked with pimps or madams (which we do not), it does not justify arresting us. The coercion which sometimes exists in the prostitute’s relationship with a pimp or madam can be dealt with without making prostitution illegal. When the Maﬁa takes over the docks, the police do not arrest the dock workers for unloading the ships. Similarly, there is no reason to arrest prostitutes when we are victimized by pimps. When prostitutes are exiled from the beneﬁts of the legal system, the violence they face increases.
Coercion is not inherent to the profession of prostitution but is a result of criminalization. Just as the drug trade has been made much more violent by the war on drugs the prostitutes’ trade has been made more violent by the war on prostitution. Manufacturing alcohol was a violent profession during prohibition but is not so today when the sale of alcohol is legal. In the United States where selling drugs is illegal, drug selling is a violent profession. In Holland, where selling many drugs is de facto legal, drug sellers are mild-mannered shop owners.
Second, Police Chief Parks states that “These individuals (the prostitutes) earn only a small part (approximately 20 percent) of the income derived from their prostitution activities”—meaning that pimps and madams supposedly take 80 percent of the monies that we make. To the extent that this argument is true it makes a good case for legalization or decriminalization so that prostitutes could more easily choose their managers in a competitive marketplace. But what exactly is this argument supposed to prove? If prostitutes kept 80 percent of their income and paid only 20 percent to their pimps and madams would Chief Parks stop arresting them? In what way is the prostitute helped by arresting him or her for only keeping 20 percent of his or her earnings? Will Chief Parks next be examining the wages of models, realtors, and auto salespeople to see how much of their income they pay to their managers? [When I worked for the LAPD writing tickets, I probably generated thousands of dollars a day for the city- I did NOT get 20% of the earnings that I brought in to my employers... not even 10%... I was paid a fraction of what I made for my 'pimps...' would that be a good argument to arrest either ME or my EMPLOYER because I only received a small portion of the money I made for them?]
Third, Chief Parks declares, “Those who exploit prostitutes prey on the young males and females who are vulnerable to the controlling inﬂuence of drugs and physical/sexual abuse.” It would seem that he has not heard that there are counterparts to those predators in sports and show business, to name only two, and that drug use is prevalent in those professions. Has he never heard of the casting couch on which vulnerable young men and women, arriving fresh off the Greyhound buses from farming communities in the Midwest, are exploited by unscrupulous people who demand sexual favors in exchange for movie and television roles? Should we criminalize sports and show business to prevent potential exploitation or possible drug use? Are prostitutes more deserving of protection than the vulnerable young people who want to enter those professions? [Child actor Corey Feldman was interviewed by ABC in 2011 and during the interview he saidthat he blamed the adults around him, not just those looking to profit from charming children, but also some with far more sinister motives. "I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That's the biggest problem for children in this industry... It's the big secret," Feldman said. The "casting couch," which is the old Hollywood reference to actors being expected to offer sex for roles, applied to children, Feldman said. "Oh, yeah. Not in the same way. It's all done under the radar," he said."Child actor Corey Feldman told police he was molested and who his abusers were more than 20 years ago but they did nothing about it, it was claimed today. He alluded to this interview recently after a fan on Twitter asked him why he did not report the men to authorities. 'All names were given to police before statute had run out but they did zero,' he answered." ... so much for caring about 'the children'!]
And what about the horrible abuse that occurs in some marriages, including within the marriages of many police ofﬁcers? Should prostitutes be protected from such potential abuse but not wives? Would anyone suggest that spousal abuse is less of a problem for women than the abuse that might occur in a prostitute-client relationship? If prohibition of prostitution is a proven effective method to protect women, should we not support the criminalization of marriage as a way to combat the social scourge of spousal abuse? And, if we advocate the arrest of prostitutes’ customers for no other reason than that they are customers and therefore are violating our human dignity, would it not be prudent to arrest husbands who do not abuse their wives and have never shown a propensity to violence, on the outside chance that they might someday hit their spouse in a ﬁt of anger?
In his fouth point, Parks continues, “The average age of a person—male or female—who becomes involved in prostitution is 15 to 18 years old.” Surely he is aware that there are already laws which would allow the police to arrest the adult individual who has sex with a minor, regardless of money involved. How does it help the cases of ﬁfteen- to eighteen-year-olds to arrest adults in their twenties, thirties, and forties who are working as prostitutes? Would it not be more effective to utilize scarce police resources  to pursue those who hire underage people? The argument that arresting adult prostitutes discourages clients from engaging in sex with minors is ludicrous. Men who want to have sex with minors are not interested in hiring someone in their twenties or beyond. [Actually, the 'average age' quote is from a study of juvenile prostitutes, in which no one over 18 was involved. The link here goes to the updated version of the study, which was conducted in 2001. "H.6 Ages of First Intercourse and Entry Into Juvenile Prostitution Average age of first intercourse for the children we interviewed was 12 years for the boys (N=63) and 13 years for the girls (N=107). The age range of entry into prostitution for the boys, including gay and transgender boys, was somewhat younger than that of the girls, i.e., 11-13 years vs. 12-14 years, respectively pg 92- 93]
Fifth, Parks asserts, “By the time these individuals reach the age of 25 to 30, they are of marginal use to their pimps or madams and are no longer employable.” Most of the people who are being arrested for prostitution are well into their adulthood, and well past the age at which it is alleged we are “no longer employable” in our profession. Turning again to the similarities in sports, the majority of athletes have a very short term career after which they are of marginal use to their manager or team. Would anyone suggest that all those who have become unemployable as a result of their age, physical disabilities, or other condition outside of their control be incarcerated? [interestingly, the research using the FBI arrest statistics show that the majority of females arrested for prostitution were OVER ages 25, a good number of them arrested were even in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even 60s... hmmmm... well if they were of marginal use to their pimps, why were they still working? Why were they being arrested for prostitution if they weren't able to conduct business due to their advanced ages? This chart shows the ages of males and females arrested over a 32 year period, from 1981 to 2012]
Sixth, “With no skills, they often become involved in other illegal activity or survive on the largess of society.” [and what skills do we acquire in jail? All I ever learned to do in prison was to smuggle food out of the cafeteria in my bra... not something I can really use to earn a living...] Again, this is an argument for decriminalization. By giving us an arrest record for prostitution, we are virtually guaranteed to be unemployable when we want to leave the profession. It is the criminalization of prostitution, not the profession itself, which can lead to difﬁculties when a prostitute retires. Moreover, Parks’s argument proves too much. When middle-aged women get divorced—those who married young, have several children, and did not pursue a higher education—many have no job skills, do not have the youth and looks that are required by today’s job market, and are forced to “survive on the largess of society.” Should we arrest women if they have no job skills; if they get divorced and become a ﬁnancial drain on society; or if they are abused by their spouses and seek outside help? Should we prohibit them from getting married in the ﬁrst place, a relationship that can lead directly to the above scenario?
As a seventh statement, Parks maintains, “It has been shown statistically that there is a direct correlation between prostitution and other serious crimes in areas where high levels of streetwalking prostitution are allowed to occur.” It is not clear if Chief Parks is talking about other countries when he states “where high levels of streetwalking prostitution are allowed to occur,” because streetwalking and other forms of prostitution are illegal in California, thus they are never “allowed” to occur. If he is referring to the crime statistics in other countries where it is lawfully permitted to occur, he should check the facts before making such statements.
Let’s re-state the above argument with a few minor changes. “It has been shown statistically that there is a direct correlation between bank robberies and other serious white collar crimes in areas where banks are allowed to exist.” Or how about: “It has been shown statistically that there is a direct correlation between hold-ups and other serious crimes in areas where there are liquor stores and 7-11’s.” If we were to close down banks, we would not have to worry about any bank-related crimes. Closing 7-11 and liquor stores would eliminate most convenience-store related crimes, too. It is irrational to continue to criminalize prostitution because of the ancillary crimes that occur solely because prostitution is illegal.[I might add that if the prohibition of an entire business is warranted due to crimes committed by some of those who participate in that business, wouldn't that justify the prohibition of law enforcement itself, given the number of crimes that cops commit, from raping prostitutes to selling drugs, to murder for hire, to raping children? The list of crimes committed by those who carry badges and guns would certainly qualify law enforcement as an organized crime syndicate, or at least by their own standards, it should...]
Next Parks argues, “Laws are generally enacted to deter people from certain behavior which society deems contrary to its quality of life.” “Quality of life” is a subjective concept and the least impressive argument for the continued harassment, arrest, and incarceration of a group of people who are trying to improve their quality of life by earning a living. The current enforcement of prostitution laws goes well beyond any justiﬁable prevention or expurgation of inappropriate public activity which would concern “society.” Sting operations such as the one conducted by a consortium of law enforcement agencies to arrest Heidi Fleiss and her employees do not result in an improved “quality of life” for anyone other than the ofﬁcers who get to ogle semi-naked women, drink alcohol while on the job, rent fancy hotel rooms, and order expensive room service. No one is safer because Heidi Fleiss or anyone like her is behind bars.
Parks concludes, “Whether one advocates arresting and incarcerating prostitutes to protect them from exploitation or because their conduct is offensive to society, the undeniable fact remains that the act itself is indicative of a greater problem that will not be solved by approving the practice.”
Neither, of course, it is solved by the continued incarceration of prostitutes. “Society” does not have to approve of a practice in order for it not to be a crime. Does “society” approve of homosexuality, abortion, or divorce? Undoubtedly many parts of “society” do not but in most of the United States homosexuality, abortion, and divorce are not and should not be illegal.
Not that long ago laws prohibiting homosexuality were actively, though selectively, enforced. Well-meaning people believed that a stint behind bars would convince homosexuals to modify their offensive, immoral behavior. Usually the arrest and subsequent incarceration destroyed the life of the individual, but it was for his or her own good, not to mention the good of the collective sensibilities of “society.” The question is, who determines whose values, opinions, and preferences become law in this “society”? Who decides what is offensive to us all? If there is a sufﬁcient number of people who do not like gays- and we know that there are- and they are vocal enough, should we return to incarcerating homosexuals because they offend “society”? If there are enough born-again Christians to whom abortion  is offensive and contradictory to their Christian beliefs, is it appropriate to once again criminalize women for terminating the lives of their unborn babies? Should divorce be illegal because a significant number of religious people believe that marriage must be ‘until death do we part’?
When private acts, like the ones mentioned above involving consenting adults, are criminalized, the police are forced to resort to intrusive and often unconstitutional methods to garner an arrest and obtain a conviction. Further, the laws regulating adult human sexuality are so difficult to enforce without using selective prosecution, that many states have repealed most so-called moral laws against sodomy and oral copulation. The California Constitution explicitly grants an “absolute right to privacy,” and accords to its citizens that as long as no coercion is involved, any private consenting adult activity is none of the government’s business—except when private activity involves money.
It would seem the government believes that money is the root of all evil, particularly if the government thinks it is not getting any of it.
In order to combat the “evils” of prostitution, law enforcement agents needed more effective “legislative tools.” Thanks to the proliferation of prostitutes’ rights organizations, prostitutes were becoming far too savvy. They knew what a police ofﬁcer was legally permitted to do and what he could not do to make an arrest. So, a few years ago in California, a law was enacted that amended the penal code to allow a police ofﬁcer to “legally entrap” a person suspected of prostitution. The nickname for the new law was the “use a smile, go to prison” law, because the law states “A person agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with speciﬁc intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the speciﬁc intent to engage in prostitution.” No longer are words necessary to commit this crime of which the prostitute is the “victim.” Facial expressions such as smiling or winking, or even body gestures are sufﬁcient to violate the law.
And if that law was not adequate to make an arrest, a new law went into effect on January 1, 1996, that gave police unlimited power to arrest anyone they suspect of “possessing the intent” to commit prostitution. Liberal Democrat State Assemblyman Richard Katz’s law made it a misdemeanor to “loiter in any public place in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose and with the intent to commit prostitution.” It is now a crime to harbor thoughts about breaking the law without actually violating the law. According to the law’s author, “It is the intent of the Legislature to assist law enforcement in controlling prostitution related activities and to minimize the adverse effects these activities have upon local communities.” The legislature ﬁnds and determines that loitering for the purpose of engaging in a prostitution offense constitutes a public nuisance which, if left unabated, adversely affects a community’s image, public safety, and residential and business development, and tends to encourage further criminal activity. Furthermore, prostitution-related activities consume an inordinate amount of limited law enforcement resources. So, in order to reduce the expense of actually having to catch someone in the act of soliciting an act of prostitution, the legislature wants the cops to be able to circumvent our constitutional rights and arrest us for merely possessing an intent to break the law.
The law deﬁnes “loitering” as “to delay or linger without a lawful purpose for being on the property and for the purpose of committing a crime as opportunity may be discovered.” A “public place” is deﬁned as an area “open to the public or exposed to public view and includes streets, sidewalks, bridges, alleys, plazas, parks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles, whether moving or not, and buildings open to the general public, including those which serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.”
The law further states that “among the circumstances” that can be considered in determining whether a person loiters with the intent to commit prostitution are:
(1) The person repeatedly beckons to, stops, engages in conversations with or attempts to stop or engage in conversations with passersby.
(2) Repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicles by hailing the drivers, waving arms or making any other bodily gestures, or engages or attempts to engage the drivers or passengers of the motor vehicles in conversation. [An innocent “Hi, how are you, can you help me ﬁx my car? I need a ride to a service station,” becomes criminal conversation.]
(3) Has been convicted of violating this section, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 647, or any other offense relating to or involving prostitution within ﬁve years of the arrest under this section.
(4) Circles an area in a motor vehicle and repeatedly beckons to, contacts, or attempts to contact or stop pedestrians or other motorists. [Is one breaking the law if they are looking for a parking space—go around the block a couple of times, stop and ask someone in a parked car if they are leaving?]
(5) Loiters in an area that is known for prostitution activity.
(6) Has engaged, within six months prior to the arrest under this section, in any behavior described in this subdivision, with the exception of paragraph (3), or in any other behavior indicative of prostitution activity. [Which means, they can arrest you for the intent, and then, arrest you later because they arrested you before.]
If the above law were applied to any group of people other than prostitutes, undoubtedly the ACLU and other civil rights organizations would protest loudly. But the voices of these tireless defenders are strangely silent. Could it be that they believe those “anti-decrim” activists who allege that “most prostitutes” do not want prostitution legalized or decriminalized? Do they actually believe that anyone would prefer to go to jail than to work as a prostitute? Anyone who contends that we do should spend a few hours behind bars and rethink this nonsense. Do these busybody feminists believe that it is necessary to erode the constitutional rights of all members of society just to get us prostitutes to quietly accept their protection and shufﬂe off to jail where we will realize how exploited we are when we accept money for what we could otherwise legally give away?
Most prostitutes do not want to get arrested and go to jail. But as long as prostitution remains illegal, for whatever reason, the police will continue to take away our freedom. That is why the laws must change. Most activists within the prostitutes’ rights movement favor a decriminalized system rather than a legalized one. Legalization is a system whereby the state regulates, taxes, and licenses whatever form of prostitution is legalized, and often involves the establishment of special government agencies to deal with prostitution. It means that the government enacts new laws that put the control of prostitution in the hands of the police or the state.
The police department (or criminal justice system) has no business running or regulating prostitution, any more than it should run restaurants or grocery stores or the movie industry. These are all businesses, subject to business regulations, and under civil authority. Prostitution is a business, a service industry. It should be run as a business, subject only to the same kinds of business laws and regulations as other businesses.
Decriminalization would allow this to happen. It would repeal all existing criminal codes from non-coercive adult commercial sex activity, and related areas, such as management and personal relationships. It would involve no new legislation to deal with prostitution per se, because there are already plenty of laws which cover problems such as fraud, force, theft, negligence, and collusion. Those laws could be enforced against anyone who violated them, just as they are now, when force o[r] fraud is used in any other profession. As Priscilla Alexander points out in “California NOW, Working on Prostitution,” “decriminalization offers the best chance for women who are involved in prostitution to gain some measure of control over their work. It would also make it easier to prosecute those who abuse prostitutes either physically or economically, because the voluntary, non-abusive situations would be left alone.”
A woman’s body belongs to her and not to the government. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we believe that the Constitution protects the individual’s rights to own, use, and enjoy his or her body in any manner that he or she deems appropriate, as long as the rights of others are not violated. Everyone has a right to make moral decisions about his or her life and property (including the use of his or her body) that others may ﬁnd disagreeable, disgusting, or immoral.
Until we return the control of all individual choices to the individual, the presumably unintended consequences of protectionist legislation will be the continued victimization of those the laws were designed to protect. The devastation to the lives of those unfortunate enough to be “protected” by the law enforcement ofﬁcers charged with upholding the law is enormous and should outrage anyone who claims to be concerned with the well-being of the “less fortunate.” As Peter McWilliams said in his book, Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, “What the enforcement of laws against consensual activities does to the individuals is nothing short of criminal. The government is destroying the very lives of the people it is supposedly helping and saving.”
Whether or not we as individuals ﬁnd the notion of prostitution repugnant, immoral, sexist, or degrading, it is not in the best interest of women to continue to allow the use of the criminal justice system to remedy so-called social ills. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee—authors of Inherit the Wind, wrote these lines, “I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish. I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches—its upholders as well as its deﬁlers.” The prohibitions against prostitution are wicked laws. For the sake of all women, we must repeal them.
AND TO THE RAD FEMS AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES OUT THERE- IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF CONSENTING ADULT COMMERCIAL SEX, YOU SUPPORT THE CONTINUED ABUSE, RAPE AND EXTORTION OF SEX WORKERS AT THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. STOP INFANTILIZING US AND CLAIMING TO CARE ABOUT OUR WELL BEING, BECAUSE ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS YOUR ABOLITIONIST AGENDA- AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE RECOGNIZING OUR RIGHTS!
Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 10:30
SHOCKING! SCANDALOUS! COPS NEW POLICY: 'RAPING PROSTITUTES TO RESCUE' THEM FROM SEX TRAFFICKING!
Written by Norma Jean Almodovar
Friday, 21 March 2014 14:53
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! THE SHOCKING, LURID DETAILS OF COPS AND HOOKERS!
THE MEDIA FINALLY WAKES UP TO THE 'SHOCKING NEWS' THAT COPS CAN AND DO HAVE SEX WITH 'SUSPECTED PROSTITUTES' TO MAKE AN ARREST!!! NOW, WHEN WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD GET IT- THAT THE PROHIBITION OF PROSTITUTION ALLOWS COPS TO SEXUALLY ABUSE THOSE WHOM THE PROSTITUTION ABOLITIONISTS CLAIM ARE 'VICTIMS OF SEX TRAFFICKING'?
BY REFUSING TO SUPPORT THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF CONSENTING ADULT COMMERCIAL SEX, ABOLITIONISTS SUPPORT A POLICY OF COPS 'RAPING TO RESCUE' SEX WORKERS!
But this is nothing new, it has been happening for years- ever since prostitution was prohibited, cops have demanded free sex from prostitutes and then use the law to arrest them.As the article from 1978 or 1979 Spokane WA, the judge said "it may violate public morals, but personal beliefs can't be substituted for the law..."[HMMMMMM..... WHAT ARE LAWS AGAINST COMMERCIAL SEX IF NOT SOMEONE'S PERSONAL - SOCIAL OR MORAL - BELIEFS IN THE FIRST PLACE????]
If authorizing cops to have (non consensual) sex with a 'suspected victim' is a viable way to 'help' or 'rescue' those who are regarded as potential victims of sex trafficking, why not apply this same solution to help other 'suspected victims' of rape, sexual assault, pedophile priests, preachers, teachers, coaches, and any other crimes of a sexual nature? Surely this is an effective way to address suspected sex crimes where the victim may not realize he or she is a victim or may be reluctant to report being a victim... For sex trafficking victims, once a cop *rapes them, then arrests them- and threatens them with incarceration where they are likely to be raped by the jail staff, they may be more willing to accept their victimhood and participate in the prosecution of their non violent, non abusive clients or employers, who are viewed by law enforcement as 'pimps' or 'traffickers...'
*Why is it rape? Because if the sex worker KNEW beforehand that this person was a law enforcement agent, do you think the sex worker would CONSENT to have sex with the cop? The fact that the cop used deceit (pretending to be a client) and treachery (promise of agreed upon fee ) to entice the sex worker to provide the services of companionship and sexual intimacy, does not negate the theft of services because the money given to the sex worker is confiscated as 'evidence' of the sex worker's victimization' while the services provided cannot be returned. Some might argue that the sex worker is committing a crime- but if the sex worker is the 'victim' because, according to prostitution abolitionists, "prostitution is like rape,' then the cop is the criminal perpetrating a crime twice over.
Ironically, in 1987 the court ruled that cops can hire 'sex trafficking victims' to have sex with another 'suspected criminal'- in order to catch the more important 'criminal' (except we are supposedly VICTIMS)! So the cops can recruit a 'sex trafficking victim,'(an act of pandering for anyone not a cop)who is then paid by taxpayers- to have sex for money... Thus the taxpayers would be the 'johns' since they are paying for being screwed. Under the so called "Swedish Model" in which the 'johns' are arrested, this would mean the cops could arrest the taxpayers for providing the money with which the cops hire the 'sex trafficking victim' to be 'exploited' for the greater good... right? It gets so confusing when we criminalize consenting adult activity and yet make exceptions for law enforcement to break the laws they are supposed to uphold!
Help Wanted (anywhere USA): “Hey Guys- looking for that perfect job? Something that will give you access to hot babes who are always available? You get to party at upscale hotels, unlimited free room service including booze AND you get paid to get laid! Sound too good to be true? No- I am not talking about becoming a gigolo- this is today’s vice cop job! But if going through the academy and walking a beat first before you get to the fun part of being a cop is too much work, there’s also the exciting opportunity to be a high paid undercover police informant! You get the same great partying and getting paid for getting laid but without the risk of being shot at by real bad guys before you are recruited to work vice!
And we aren’t talking skanky street hookers either! We got laws to round up those ‘hos without having to say a word! Ever priced those Emperor’s Club gals? The ones like billionaire former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer hired? Think they are out of your league? Not when you are working for the government! We got you covered! It’s all part of the package! All we need is your testimony in court that you had sex with these poor victims and they asked you for the money. That’s it! Case Closed!
Not only will you have the opportunity to get laid by the same high caliber call girls who service clients like Charlie Sheen and Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, but you will be doing your community a great service by rescuing these poor gals from a life of exploitation and degradation where they get paid upwards of $5,000 an hour. After their arrest and conviction, thanks to your testimony, they can find societally approved employment which is more appropriate for them, like cleaning toilets at Motel 6 for minimum wage! Call your local police vice unit for details! Get in on this exciting career now!” * * * The above help wanted ad may be fictitious but the content is not. While sex worker rights activists like myself have known for many years this was happening, most people out there, including many of the women who advertise on the internet, don’t have a clue that vice cops and undercover informants can actually have sex with a ‘suspected prostitute’ before the cops arrest her. Not only vice cops, but some police departments actually hire men from the community to carry out the ‘necessary sex act’ to make their arrests of the prostitutes stick. I can see you men shaking your head in disbelief and asking yourself how can you get a job like that?
Imagine, our tax dollars go to pay some lucky guys to have sex with women who are suspected of being ‘victims of exploitation’... also known as sex workers. You should be warned though- if you go out there and attempt to conduct a ‘rescue’ on your own, you might get arrested for solicitation and sent to your local “John School” where you will learn how awful you are for exploiting those poor gals by paying them instead of just forcing them into sex for free!
Stopping the ‘exploitation and degradation’ of women is the motivation behind the heavy enforcement of prostitution laws, according to the religious right and radical leftist feminists who have persuaded the mostly liberal legislators to pass laws which give cops cart blanche to make their arrests. These groups of moral and social busybodies insist that all prostitutes are sex slaves or ‘victims’ regardless of their age or consent. In deference to their claims, I shall substitute their term ‘victim’ for ‘prostitute’ to show just how ridiculous the enforcement of the laws really is.
California doesn’t want its police officers to be subjected to such an unpleasant task as getting paid to have sex with a suspected ‘victim,’ although they can if necessary, so our liberal legislators have given them useful tools which makes it so much easier to rescue/arrest those ‘victims.’ See, many of those street ‘victims’ got way too smart for the cops and found ways to circumvent the law as it was being enforced by undercover cops for years.
Back in the days when it was illegal for cops to entrap suspected ‘victims,’ prostitutes/ victims would manipulate the potential exploiter/ customer to make the first move, because if the man was a cop, he couldn’t initiate a sexual encounter. The ‘victim’ would use body language to signal if she was interested and off they would go for a little exploitation. So making arrests of street ‘victims’ was a time consuming effort and often resulted in cops going over the line, allowing the ‘victim’ to go unrescued/ unpunished.
To remedy that embarrassment and inconvenience, California’s Liberal Democrats passed a law which allowed the undercover cop to suggest an act of sex for money and all the suspected ‘victim’ had to do to get arrested was to “manifest an acceptance” of the offer. If she smiled or winked at him, that was an indication, according to the cops, that she was accepting the offer to be exploited and could then be rescued/ arrested on solicitation charges.
When the poor exploited ‘victims’ learned they could now be rescued/ arrested for just making any sort of facial or body gesture- we called that law the “use a smile go to jail” law- they thought they had outfoxed the cops again by requesting that the potential exploiter/ customer drop his pants and show his genitals. Surely the cops weren’t allowed to show their dicks, were they? As many of those ‘victims' discovered after the fact, the cops could do that as well as go all the way if necessary.
A few years of enforcing the ‘gesture’ law, California cops got really lazy and requested the liberal legislators give them something to make arresting these savvy ‘victims’ almost, well, automatic. The law which was passed after no debate from anyone, conservative or liberal, allowed the police to arrest a person whom the cops suspected of merely possessing the intent to commit prostitution (possessing ‘an intent’ to be a ‘victim’???? psychic cops????? interesting concept!) even if the suspected ‘victim’ was in a car, whether moving or not. Heck, if we could arrest persons who may possess the intent to commit rapes or robberies before they actually commit a crime, we’d have fewer real victims... However this concept of arresting a person before they commit a crime/ become a ‘victim’ hasn’t caught on outside of prostitution, probably because we don’t consider rapists, robbers and spousal abusers to be ‘victims’ who need ‘rescuing.’ Not to mention, the ACLU and other civil libertarians would be all over such laws, crying fowl before the proposed bill could get out of legislative discussion!
Even with the ability to make an effortless arrest, cops still conduct sting operations when they want to arrest in volume or go after those who run “prostitution rings.” Thus far, it isn’t a crime to ‘possess the intent to commit pandering,’ making it necessary to do undercover investigations to arrest the ‘pimps/ madams.’ Some undercover sting operations last as long as three to five years before any arrests are made. During that time the vice cops (or their paid civilian helpers) visit the suspected den of ‘victims’ over and over again, just to make certain those women are actually prostitutes and that someone else is in charge. There have been cops who became so enamored of the ‘victims' they were having sex with that they left the women huge tips. It was a rather empty gesture, though, since it was not coming out of their pocket but rather the pockets of taxpayers who footed the bill for these commercial sexual liaisons.
Before we go any further, I must make you aware that it is so potentially dangerous to rescue (arrest) unarmed ‘victims’ that it frequently requires the deployment of many cops to consummate the rescues/ arrests. The standard ratio for cops to hookers (oops... I meant ‘victims’) is 7 to 1, just to ensure that the ‘victim’ clearly understands how very seriously the government takes their exploitation. Prostitution is, after all, ‘worse than rape or robbery’ for the ‘victim’ because prostitutes are often lured into a ‘lifetime of shame and degradation which progressively rapes their spirit, character and self- image’... or so the LA District Attorney claimed when he appealed my probation sentence for one count of pandering a number of years ago, successfully overturning the judge’s sentence and forcing him to impose on me the mandatory three to six year prison term California law requires. If one commits rape, robbery, assault, mayhem and even murder, but they don’t use a gun, they can get probation!
In Los Angeles a few years back, a prostitution sting called “Operation Silver Bullet” was conducted, which was, according to the LA Daily News “one of LAPD’s largest prostitution stings in several years. Vice Detectives fanned out across the San Fernando Valley and simultaneously raided seven suspected prostitution dens fronting as legitimate businesses.” And the LAPD proudly reported that “approximately 100 officers took part in Operation Silver Bullet, netting 14 arrests... which were all for solicitation, operating a house of prostitution and residing in a house of prostitution...” Anyone who can do the math will figure out that if it took 100 officers to bust 14 ‘suspected victims,’ that’s 7 cops per hooker/victim. Oh yeah, and the cops were later given an awards banquet to honor them for their heroic work in making these dangerous arrests... Makes you wonder how they can hand out those awards with a straight face.
When notorious Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss was on trial, I had the opportunity to sit in court every day with my friend Sydney Biddle Barrows, the equally notorious Mayflower Madam. During the trial, a number of interesting facts were disclosed, such as how the cops set up the women and what they did to signal their comrades waiting in the other room that a violation of law had taken place and it was time to make the arrests. I share this information with you in hopes that you will come to realize just how important it is to allocate the precious and scarce police and other government resources pursuing these ‘victims’ and destroying their lives, rather than pursuing real criminals who have real victims- victims who often do not ever see their perpetrators punished because the police cannot corroborate the crime or gather sufficient evidence against the alleged criminal to make a case. And I guarantee you that for these real crimes, the police do not deploy seven officers to the scene of the crime unless it involves a bank robbery or homicide!
The pretend exploiter/ client/vice cop will call the madam and claim to be a friend of one of her real clients, and tell her he has a bunch of buddies coming into town. He wants to arrange for her best girls to provide their services for himself and his friends, and he throws around huge numbers at the madam to peak her interest. He will also mention to her particular sex acts that he wants these ‘victims’ to provide him or his buddies, which he may also repeat to the alleged ‘victims’ over the phone prior to the assignation. A real client generally has a lot more class than that, so this should be a tip off, but the potential payday can cloud the judgement of even the most paranoid pimp/madam and her ‘victims.’ Another tip off should be when the ‘client’ insists on having the madam or the ‘alleged victims’ bring along illegal drugs for him and his friends.
To set up high class call girls and their madam, you cannot rent a room at the local Motel 6- so the cops work out a deal with very upscale hotels which agree to provide comped luxurious suites in which to conduct these stings, in exchange for leaving the in- house girls alone. These would be the ‘victims’ that the concierge can provide the discreet hotel guest, as long as the ‘victims’ pay off the right hotel staff to be allowed to work there without fear of being ‘rescued’ by the cops.
Although they are oppressed ‘victims’ who cannot think or speak for themselves, these women are quite capable of discerning an inappropriate situation once they arrive in their alleged exploiter/client’s hotel room, and clearly if the exploiter/client was who he said he was, there would be expensive champagne and perhaps hors d'oeuvres available, and we aren’t talking chips and dip either! To sell this undercover operation to ‘victims’ who are used to being wined and dined at the very best restaurants and hotels and paid upwards of $500 to $5,000 an hour, all the accouterments of wealth and power need to be visible. And yes, the vice cops get to partake of the food and alcoholic beverages as part of their job to deceive these wretched souls into believing they are about to be exploited /paid for having sex.
Quite often, the undercover cops will request a ‘double’ - two ‘victims’ at a time. For one thing, it speeds up the process of making the rescues/arrests but it also provides entertainment for the other cops who get to watch a ‘show’ of the two women kissing and fondling each other. For while the vice cop acting as the exploiter/client sets up the ‘victim/s’ for her/their arrest, in the adjoining suite, his colleagues are videotaping everything so the jury will see just how degrading being a prostitute really is. May I remind you again that it is necessary for a multitude of vice cops to be deployed for these ‘take downs’ as the ‘victims’ may attempt an escape, not realizing of course that they are better off getting arrested so they can get on with their rehabilitation and transition into the appropriate careers waiting for them in the fast food industry. The pretend exploiter/ client (aka the vice cop) may ask the ‘victim’ to partially undress so he can examine ‘the goods’ before he ‘shells out the dough.’ And to amuse the cops in the other room, he may ask the ‘victim’ to clap, hum and do a little dance for him in her state of semi- nakedness, which is also the signal that a violation has taken place and the other cops are now to come flying through the door with their guns drawn to place this degraded ‘victim’ in protective custody/make an arrest. The ‘victim’ may or may not be permitted to put her clothes back on- but often times she is not allowed to do so until there is a female officer available to do a full body cavity search. So very often she will be required to sit in this state of undress in the room with the other cops who are now waiting for the next ‘victim’ to arrive.
Meanwhile, the farce continues until every last ‘victim’ has been identified and caught and the sting has gone down successfully. Now the ‘victims’ are herded into police cars or vans and taken to the nearest jail facility where they will be processed. Here again they will be strip searched, given a de-lousing shower and a matching set of jail house pants and tops and put into lockup until they can make bail. They will also be interrogated and told that if they cooperate with the government and testify against their ‘pimp/madam,’ most likely they will not be put on trial or go to jail. If they are from out of state or another country, their employer/ pimp/ madam will undoubtedly be charged with violating ‘human trafficking’ laws, a federal offense. ‘Victims’ from other countries will be threatened with deportation if they refuse to cooperate. Regardless of their cooperation, most of these ‘victims’ will still have arrest records which may prevent them from ever finding other employment. At best, they may find work earning minimum wage, which they will have to spend paying off legal bills and fines they may be given for being ‘victims.’
The sting operation I have described above is one that is takes place within the course of an evening, but as I said earlier, many sting operations take place over many months or in some cases, years. In long term sting operations, the vice cops or their deputized civilians actually go through with the sex and pay the ‘victims.’ The money is marked, naturally, so that the cops can detect a trail of where the money goes after the ‘victims’ pay their ‘pimps/ madams.’ The ‘victims’ get to spend the money anyway they please, just as they would if the money came from a ‘real client’ and not out of the pocket of the taxpayers... This is your hard earned money at work.
One could say that these laws are turning the taxpayers into “johns” because they are paying for getting screwed- while at the same time, the cops are themselves turned into prostitutes, because the very definition of prostitution is getting paid for getting laid, isn’t it? How do we stop the exploitation of the vice cops who are forced into prostitution by their sergeants, lieutenants, captains and even local prosecutors who instruct them to have sex with those poor alleged ‘victims’ so the ‘victims’ can be arrested? Maybe we should stop paying the cops a salary while they work undercover vice, so that like the women they arrest, they won’t be considered ‘victims’ if they have sex for free...
Same goes for those civilian males who are paid by the cops to have sex with ‘suspected prostitutes/‘victims,’ under the law, aren’t they also prostitutes? And wouldn’t the hiring of them be considered ‘pandering’ just as it is when a madam hires a prostitute? “Pandering” in most states is a felony and defined as “encouraging a person to commit an act of prostitution.” So when the average citizen requests the continued enforcement of these laws to ‘protect women from being exploited,’ should we arrest the cops or the taxpayers for pandering? Gets rather complicated when enforcing laws based on subjective concepts like ‘exploitation’ and ‘degradation,’ doesn’t it?
And then there is the 1987 US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision; ruling that it is “unrealistic to expect law enforcement officers to ferret out criminals without the help of unsavory characters,” (and just why are ‘victims’ unsavory characters?) the court determined that it was permissible for the government to hire a ‘victim’/prostitute to help them catch other criminals. This decision made it possible for any and every government agency to hire a hooker/‘victim’ when necessary. This is most likely the explanation for Louisiana Senator David Vitter’s hiring of DC Madam Deborah Palfrey’s ‘victims,’ and it would seem probable that it applies to New York’s former Governor Eliot Spitzer as well.
It gets even more complicated when cops are encouraged to use prostitution laws to recruit ‘victims’ and even pimps/ madams to become informants. For many police departments, such informants are invaluable. In exchange for being an informant, the ‘victims’ and pimps/ madams are allowed to practice their profession/exploitation without fear of being rescued/arrested. In fact, if they don’t continue being ‘victims’ or pimps/ madams, they would have nothing to offer the cops by way of information on other suspected ‘victims,’ pimps/madams and their exploiters/ clients. But you can be sure that the cops let these individuals know that if they cease being useful to the cops, they will be rescued/ arrested and persecuted... uh, make that prosecuted.
What I simply do not understand is how the cops are able determine which ‘victims’ to rescue/ arrest and which ‘victims’ can be sacrificed for the greater good, that is allowed to continue being exploited for money? Often it comes down to who will put out and who won’t. The cops who control our fate, unfortunately for us ‘victims,’ are human beings and mostly male ones at that. They are driven by the same biological urges that prompt men in general to seek sexual gratification from willing partners. There is also the temptation of extorting ‘victims’ for money, seeing that a police officer’s monthly salary is so insignificant compared to the cash a ‘victim’ can earn within a few hours.
There have been so many cases of cops forcing ‘victims’ to have sex with them in order to avoid being ‘rescued’/ arrested that it is considered a cost of doing business by most ‘victims.’ Occasionally the cops get caught, such as the Long Beach, California police officer Bryon Ellsberry, who was charged with rape after he continually coerced a ‘victim’/ prostitute to have sex with him. She filed a complaint against him and was given an opportunity to wear a wire to record their conversation the next time he extorted her for her sexual favors. He was arrested and convicted, but given a probation sentence rather than sent to jail. However, most states have mandatory minimum jail sentences for those accused of being the ‘victims’/ prostitutes... probably because there is so much evidence to show that being arrested and incarcerated, strip searched and de-loused increases one’s self- esteem, and helps ‘victims’ to be rehabilitated and reformed- after, of course, they give the male jail guards a blow job or else get sent to solitary confinement for refusing to be cooperative...
Is there a downside to being an undercover vice cop or a civilian helper? Most people would think that sexual situations with ‘victims’/ prostitutes would put those men at increased risk for STDs. The media portrays sex workers as being riddled with disease- but the reality is that a man is more likely to encounter a diseased partner picking up a ‘one night stand’ at a local bar- a non commercial tryst- than he is with a ‘victim’/ prostitute.
I can understand why a man might want to be an undercover agent- especially men who like to brag that they “don’t have to pay for it” even though everybody does “pay for it” one way or another. And as long as society looks the other way at whatever cops have to do to ‘stop the exploitation’ of women and children, arbitrarily enforcing laws against some while encouraging others to continue breaking the law as paid informants (the ends justify the means), there will be guys who seek out such work. They tell themselves that they are helping the poor ‘victims’ escape a life of ‘degradation.’ So don’t be surprised if someday soon you see a real help wanted ad just like the fictitious one in this article. But also don’t be surprised that we ‘victims’ are fighting back any way we legally can.
After the Heidi Fleiss’ trial I created a poster from the information I learned about the sting operation, called “Top Ten Signs You are Being Set Up by An Undercover Cop.” It is available for free download as a PDF from our website: along with other helpful posters for sex workers or anyone else who may be interested. The best piece of advice I have for any woman who, when going to an unknown client’s hotel room, is asked by the ‘client’ to get undressed, clap, hum and do a little dance- grab your purse and run for your life! Unfortunately you will probably get arrested anyway, so your only alternative would be to ask him to get undressed, clap, hum and do a little dance for you- the video the cops are making from the other room might amuse the jury enough to acquit you of being a ‘victim!’
Here are more of those brave, heroic cops and civic minded men who have sex with 'victims' in order to rescue them... click on image to view pdf with clickable links:
Last Updated on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 18:29
THANK YOU, MELISSA FARLEY- AND OTHER SEX WORKER POSITIVE VIDEOS
Written by Norma Jean Almodovar
Wednesday, 08 January 2014 16:15
VIDEOS! VIDEOS! VIDEOS!
A picture is worth a thousand words- and believe me- sex workers have plenty to say! And our videos are all over the internet, if anyone bothers to look for them. Here are a few from my youtube page, as well as the many outspoken sex workers from around the world.
FYI: IF YOU HAVE A VIDEO RELATED TO THIS ISSUE AND WOULD LIKE US TO POST IT ON THIS PAGE, PLEASE CONTACT NORMA JEAN WITH THE DETAILS AND THE URL
normajeanalmodovar [@] gmail.com
IF WE HAVE POSTED A VIDEO HERE AND YOU DO NOT WANT US TO, LET ME KNOW AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO REMOVE IT.
FIRST UP- A FOUR PART SERIES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF BAD LAWS WHICH CAN BE ARBITRARILY AND SELECTIVELY ENFORCED (videos created by norma jean and also available on her youtube channel:
"THANK YOU- MELISSA FARLEY!"(by which we mean "NO THANKS, you patronizing, condescending, infantilizing 'victim pimp'! We aren't interested in providing you with any more 'funding opportunities' to continue your pathetic, hateful, fabricated 'research' based solely on your demented 'rescue' fantasies! And that goes for all your prostitution abolitionist cronies from the right and the left!")
ABOVE: PART I - EDITH- OUR ARTICULATE AND INDEPENDENT SEX WORKER, ENCOUNTERS OFFICER DINGLEBERRY WHO DEMANDS 'FREE SAMPLES' FROM EDITH IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE ARRESTED AND GO TO JAIL, WHERE SHE WILL NO DOUBT BE RAPED BY THE GUARDS:
"THANK YOU MELISSA FARLEY"YOUR LIES ALLOW THE COPS TO USE THE LAWS YOU CLAIM ARE INTENDED TO 'HELP' US- TO BE USED TO RAPE AND EXTORT US- BUT APPARENTLY YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE EXPLOITATION... BECAUSE YOU DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT SEX WORKERS- IT IS ALL ABOUT YOUR DESIRE TO CONTROL OUR BODIES, TO DISALLOW WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO... YOU DISALLOW OUR VOICES, CLAIMING THAT IF WE DON'T CONCUR WITH YOUR TWISTED VISION OF OUR WORK AND ADMIT TO BEING 'VICTIMS, WE MUST EITHER BE SUFFERING FROM A FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS... OR YOU THINK WE ARE 'PIMPS' I MEAN- REALLY! GET A LIFE, MELISSA-AND LEAVE US ALONE! YOUR 'WORLD VIEW' OF SEX IS HARMING US!
ABOVE: PART II - EDITH- OUR INDEPENDENT SEX WORKER, GETS ARRESTED BY A DIFFERENT OFFICER (OFFICER DIPSHEET)- AND OFFICER DINGLEBERRY SHOWS UP.
EDITH ASKS WHY HE DIDN'T TELL HIS FELLOW OFFICERS THAT SHE WAS PROVIDING FREE SAMPLES TO HIM AND NOT TO BOTHER HER? HE EXPLAINS THAT HE TOLD THEM SHE WAS 'HOT...' WHICH IS NO DOUBT WHY OFFICER DIPSHEET WANTED A FREE SAMPLE AS WELL. WHEN EDITH DID NOT PROVIDE IT, SHE WAS ARRESTED.
DINGLEBERRY ASKS HER AGE AND THEN TELLS HER THAT THE PROSTITUTION ABOLITIONISTS WHO WANT TO PROTECT HER FOR HER OWN GOOD- ALL CLAIM THAT THE AVERAGE AGE OF ENTRY IS 12... EDITH TELLS DINGLEBERRY THAT BECAME A SEX WORKER AT AGE 28, AFTER THE BOSS SHE WORKED FOR AS A SECRETARY SEXUALLY HARASSED HER. ONCE SHE BECAME A SEX WORKER, HER FORMER BOSS BECAME HER CLIENT AND PAID HER $500 AN HOUR TO SEXUALLY HARASS HER, WHICH SHE DIDN'T MIND BECAUSE SHE WAS IN CHARGE OF HOW HE COULD TREAT HER. DINGLEBERRY INFORMS EDITH THAT SHE IS NOW GOING TO BE HIS SEX SLAVE.
ABOVE: PART III -OFFICER DINGLEBERRY AND EDITH - EDITH WAS RAPED THANKS TO THE LOCAL NEWS OUTLET ONLINE PUBLISHING HER HOME ADDRESS AFTER HER ARREST IN PART II (AS THEY DO FOR REAL LIVE SEX WORKERS WHO GET ARRESTED.... NO DOUBT FOR OUR OWN GOOD, SO THAT SERIAL KILLERS CAN FIND US AND RID THE WORLD OF 'OUR KIND')
ABOVE: PART IV- EDITH AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENT FROM THE OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS-
AFTER EDITH WAS ARRESTED IN PART II, THE COPS FORWARD INFORMATION ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT IN THE SEX INDUSTRY TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY. THE GOVERNMENT SENDS OUT AN OFFICIAL WHO PAYS HER A VISIT BECAUSE HE TELLS HER SHE IS A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND WANTS TO STOP HER FROM BEING EXPLOITED. SHE EXPLAINS THAT SHE IS NOT A VICTIM AT ALL.. OTHER THAN BEING A VICTIM OF SOCIETAL HYPOCRISY AND BAD LAWS... BUT HE INSISTS THAT ALL PROSTITUTION IS HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND MUST BE ERADICATED BY ENDING THE DEMAND. HE TELLS HER SHE SHOULD BE HAPPY BECAUSE NOW SHE CAN GO OUT AND FIND APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT MAKING MINIMUM WAGE INSTEAD OF BEING EXPLOITED BY MEN WHO PAY HER $500 AN HOUR. HE EVEN OFFERS TO SEND HER FOR TRAINING TO BE A SEAMSTRESS, WHERE SHE CAN WORK IN A SWEATSHOP AND BE EXPLOITED BY GOOD CHRISTIANS WHO ARE OFFERING EMPLOYMENT TO THE POOR SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS LIKE HER.
WHEN SHE CONTINUES TO DENY BEING A SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM, HE SHOWS HIS DEEP CONCERN FOR HER WELL BEING BY ASKING HER FOR A FREE SAMPLE AS WELL.
SEX WORK IS WORK-Vice Interview with Melissa Gira Grant (posted March 11, 2014)
The video link below is to Carol Leigh's new video:
Most people only see the story of a local cop, corrections officer or other government agent who got caught molesting a child, extorting a sex worker, or raping a woman at a traffic stop, and simply do not know how prevalent the abuse is.
Although there are many sources where this information can be found, it is usually only available for the most recent cases and leaves the reader without a sense that this is a serious, ongoing problem in every community. And it isn't just the street cop who engages in child molestation/ rape. A significant number of police chiefs, chief deputies and top law enforcement agents use their positions of trust to seduce children, and that innate trust we have in law enforcement agents allows the parents of the child to ignore the signs that in any other situation would send up red flags. When a top cop is busted for raping a child when the cop is in his 50s or 60s- do you really believe that this is the first time it happened? That a man who has everything to lose is suddenly and out of nowhere going to develop a lust for raping a small child or a teenage minor? Surely it is more likely that such a 'trustworthy' individual has been indulging in his perversions for decades, fooling everyone around him, terrifying his victims into silence, because after all, who will believe a child when the child claims that the CHIEF OF POLICE is raping them?