Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Why Hockey Fans Should Root For Devils Vs. Kings

What The Jerry Sandusky Scandal Tells Me About Village Voice Media

Excuse me while I digress for a bit...

I don't know if this is the worst year in the history of college football in terms of off-the-field scandals, violations and outright miserable human behavior. But it sure feels like it.

Nevin Shapiro's admissions of a (literal) boatload of violations involving the University of Miami tore down a program on the rise and reaffirmed what everyone always thought about the Canes.

Jim Tressel's shadiness undid a storied Ohio St. Buckeyes program and his own career. Overnight he went from a trusted father figure to a self-interested, sweater-vested dirtbag.

Cam Newton and his father were exonerated over accusations that they openly asked for a bribe to attend Auburn...but no one outside of Auburn, AL is convinced.

Oregon got caught making a shady $25,000 payment to Willie Myles and his "recruiting service" which basically involved Myles trying to veer kids towards the Ducks.

Butch Davis finally took the fall for all the shadiness that happened under his watch at North Carolina.

Conference realignment, driven by money and without input from the student-athletes who generate all that money, has remade the landscape into a Frankenstein patchwork of conglomerates and strange bedfellows.

The Fiesta Bowl got caught giving away freebies to politicians and proving that the BCS is just as corrupt as you think it is.

I'm sure I'm missing more minor violations and other dumb decisions or mistakes made by players, coaches or administrators. However, the point remains...college football is having a bad year.

And that was BEFORE the news that Penn State stood idly by and let one of their assistant football coaches molest and abuse multiple children in their midst for 20 years.

Because let's be clear...what Sandusky stands accused of and what the many, many, many Penn State officials and employees stand accused of NOT doing is one million times worse than any of those other things I listed.

What Jim Tressel and Butch Davis did was violate rules.

What Jerry Sandusky did was violate human decency.

Star-divide

We can sit here and argue all day how terrible it was what Terrelle Pryor did or whether or not Cam Newton deserved punishment, because the truth is there is a lot of gray area in their situations.

There is no discussion when it comes to Sandusky. There is no gray area. It is so black and white that it's insulting if anyone actually does try to mount a defense.

The same goes for Penn State AD Tim Curley, VP Gary Schultz, head football coach Joe Paterno and everyone else at the school who was privy to information that could have prevented Sandusky from doing further damage to children and chose to draw a line in how far they were willing to go to protect them.

Their inaction does not fall into a gray area. Because there is no gray area here either.

It's one thing to witness a theft and do nothing. It's another thing to witness a fight and do nothing. And it's something on a completely different level so far beyond either of those to witness an adult molesting a child and do nothing...or next to nothing.

I know this because I spend a lot of time on Twitter.

Ah yes, Twitter. The much-maligned, snap-judgement center of the Internet. If there's something worth complaining about, people are complaining on Twitter and people off-Twitter are complaining about those complaining on Twitter.

Folks on Twitter have gotten accustom to voicing their opinions within seconds of anything happening. There is no news lag. When a celebrity dies, a trial decision is handed down or an Earthquake happens, we all know about it within seconds and we've all judged them/it seconds later.

Usually, there's four sides to the discussion. There's the majority that voice an opinion one way. Then there's a dissenting minority. Then there's an ironic reaction to both the majority and the minority. And then there's a serious reaction to all three of them once the emotions have died down.

However when it came to the Sandusky news, there was no such progressions. There was one voice and one voice alone. This is horrible. This is awful. This is unconscionable. Everyone needs to be held accountable. Yes, there were Penn State loyalists who defended their people to the death, but there were a minute minority.

There was no doubt...we know bad when we see it and this is about as bad as it gets. Even if it only involved one child, it would have been bad. But this??? This cuts to the core of everything we know to be wrong.

It makes me think about Village Voice Media and what they're trying to accomplish right now in their underage sex workers "crusade."

-----------

Since I moved to Seattle in June of 2010, I have become an avid reader of The Stranger and Seattle Weekly. Both are "alternative weeklies," which is a nice way to say "those square newspapers that exist to stir s*** up."

I do not read the Seattle Times. I don't go to Seattle news sites. The only local radio I listen to is sports-related.

So, basically, I get all my local news from these two newspapers.

The core demographic for both papers seems to be a counter-culture, weed-smoking, concert-attending hipster. They aren't left-leaning, they're left-leaping.

For better or worse, I don't fall into any of those initial categories. I don't care about their extensive music reviews. I find the weed culture boring and uncreative. And I wear cargos and baseball caps way too often for anyone to ever consider me a hipster.

What I do like about the weeklies is that they don't pull any punches. They go after politicians for their bulls***. They come correct on PR flacks trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They get down and dirty to tell the story behind the story.

They "fight the good fight."

And so when I opened the Seattle Weekly in late June to read the article Real Men Get Their Facts Straight, an expose into Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore's Real Men Don't Buy Girls campaign, I expected them to uncover shocking truths about how evil this seemingly-goodhearted effort to educate people about child sex slavery in the United States truly is.

I expected to find out money was being funneling into Kutcher and Moore's private bank accounts. I expected to hear that they have records of Kutcher visiting underage prostitution houses. I expected to hear about how these two smug Hollywood jerks were being Hollywood jerks.

The end result of the article was that, while it's true that child sex slavery exists in the United States and around the world, it's not quite as bad as they're making out to be, so let's, like, chill out, you guys.

Hooray?

Were we supposed to feel better knowing that? I remember that I stopped reading the article halfway through because I just kept getting more and more confused. Not by the numbers. Not by the campaign. But by the slant that the Seattle Weekly had taken.

Did they not want us to worry about child sex slaves? Did they want us to stop trying to help child sex slaves? Since, according to their numbers, the amount of arrests numbered in the four-digits instead of the six-digits, should we not really care about children forced into a life of prostitution and abuse? Should we just consider them "acceptable losses" and move on with our lives?

The Seattle Weekly is owned by Village Voice Media (VVM), which owns alternative weeklies like the Seattle Weekly all over the country. They own NYC's Village Voice (obviously), The LA Weekly, The Miami New-Times, The Minneapolis City Pages and a bunch of others.

What I didn't realize when I read the story in the Seattle Weekly was that the story had also been printed in all of VVM's 13 publications. This was a big deal to them. They wanted to make sure everyone knew how inflated the statistics were and how child prostitution is SO not the big problem those Hollywood jerks are making it out to be.

That was weird, I thought. So I did a little digging. Turns out, I didn't have to do much at all.

Village Voice Media owns Backpage.com, whose adult listings section has been accused of being "a platform for the trafficking of minors." It's like Craigslist back when Craigslist had sex-related ads. And here's the thing...Backpage makes money.

I don't think you understand...Backpage makes A LOT OF MONEY for VVM. Roughly $22M a year.

Here in Seattle, Mayor Mike McGinn made a local plea for the Seattle Weekly to shut it down after his police force rescued three female children advertised on the site around the same time as their article on Ashton Kutcher.

Rather than addressing the issues at-hand, The Seattle Weekly & VVM responded by making it personal, attacking McGinn and his credibility.

It was a page right of the Fox News/NewsCorp playbook.

(And in the interest of full disclosure, Ashton Kutcher sits on the board of investors for SB Nation, the platform that runs this site. However, I am in no way affiliated with Mr. Kutcher. I have never spoken to him. I don't follow him on Twitter. I can't think of one movie he's ever made that I enjoyed. And you couldn't pay me enough money to ever watch an episode of "Two And A Half Men." So...you know...)

A few weeks ago, a coalition of 36 clergy members (including Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and others) purchased a full-page advertisement in the New York Times asking VVM to remove all adult advertising from Backpage.com (see the full ad here).

VVM's response basically reads, "Well, criminals are gonna do it anyway so, whatevs you guys" and then turns it into an attack on the clergy member's credibility.

Just like Bill O'Reilly would.

And anyone else who had dared to speak out against Backpage (or child sex trafficking in general) has faced similar wrath in recent months.

In this past week's Seattle Weekly, yet another feature article was published on the topic. "Lost Boys" wants to set the record straight about the stereotypes of the underage sex worker. The thesis seems to be that many underage sex workers are actually boys and many of them enjoy doing it.

So...case closed? Yes?

The article shames "narrow-minded" advocates who waste so much of their time, money and efforts trying to help children who are performing sexual acts on adults, because...they're totally having fun? They're having a great time? They're living the dream? They're boys and boys can handle it while chicks can't?

Seriously, even Ruport Murdoch thinks this ongoing, multi-platform campaign to justify Backpage and underage prostitution in general is a bit much.

Whatever point VVM is trying to make, it all just feels...pointless.

Is the point that we shouldn't care so much because there are only 50,000 child sex slaves in this country instead of 300,000? Is that supposed to make us feel better?

Is the point that child sex slavery is going to happen anyway so just deal with it?

Is the point that anyone who speaks out against child sex slavery must have a secret agenda, especially if they're religious or famous?

Here's what I know today that I didn't realize before the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke. It doesn't matter if it affects 300,000 kids or ONLY ONE. We, as a society, will not stand for this stuff. Not when it involved children. Not when it involved adults in positions of power. Not when it involves people who had an opportunity to stop it from happening and did nothing.

Jerry Sandusky allegedly molested eight children. If we suddenly found out that seven of them were made up and he only actually molested one child, no one would go throw a parade down State College's main street.

It would still be one too many.

----------

I don't know if anyone at VVM will read this. I'm not looking for a fight. Merely responding to what I read and trusting my instincts. If they do read it and have some free time, I assume they would refute this entire article by breaking down what Sandusky did and what the Backpage controversy is about and call them apples and oranges. Then they'd probably make fun of Syracuse or my name or say something about my mom.

But they're not apples and oranges. They're both apples, just different kinds.

Village Voice Media would like you to think that, when it comes to the welfare of innocent children, numbers matter.

The Jerry Sandusky scandal proves that they don't.

I still read the Seattle Weekly. It has good articles and think-pieces.  I just stop to think about their agenda now every time they write something and that sucks. And until they and their parent company stop acting just like arch-nemesis NewsCorp, I'll continue to do so.

I guess that's why I always reach for The Stranger first. Well, that and because Lindy West is amazeballs.

Comment 78 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician

Comments

Display:

Ugh

This issue with your local alt-newspaper rag reinforces my long standing belief – namely, everyone is bought. I used to be a pretty idealistic guy, but as I’ve aged, the one truism I’ve come to believe is “follow the money.” the follow the money mentality is the one consistent smoking gun you find behind everyone’s motives, from the seemingly innocent to the despicable.

"(BARF)" - Donovan McNabb, during his game winning drive against Virginia Tech in 1998

RESTORE 44!

by kotite4ever on Nov 8, 2011 8:12 AM EST via mobile reply actions   1 recs

Exactly

So true.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 8, 2011 8:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Right on

As someone who has actually worked to end human trafficking overseas, you only need to be confronted with one case to understand the amount of damage and level of depravity involved and the corrupting force this has. When people in power will protect the predators over the innocent, helpless victims, a society is as corrupt as it can get.

I believe we saw a microcosm of that at Penn State and it’s deeply troubling on so many levels that this is happening on a grander scale in cities throughout the country. Perhaps not as bad as other countries, but something so insidious and lucrative has an incredibly corrupting effect that will undermine our society.

On the bright side, I think once people familiarize themselves with the issue and how bad it won’t be allowed to happen anymore. The biggest challenge, having seen it first hand, is that people actually don’t believe that this sort of thing really happens.

by Derek on Nov 8, 2011 8:29 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

Nice article

Good work.

Dictated, but not read.

by ezcuse on Nov 8, 2011 8:38 AM EST reply actions  

Just read both articles and completely agree with you

What we have with the whole mess at Penn State is bad enough but the village voice inc is trying tell us that there arent that many underage hookers…. do we honestly need to know that, and does it really matter shouldnt we try to stop this no matter how many there are

by Cowsaidmoo on Nov 8, 2011 8:39 AM EST reply actions  

Ok, bam.

I read the Houston Press. They have good articles on food and music around town. But that Lost Boys article was so, so strange. I am completely and totally with you here. The whole article seems to ignore the fact that statutory rape is a thing or that sex-slavery, no matter how exaggerated, should never be seen in a positive light. I didn’t even think about the Backpage issue, but it’s a damn good point.

As kotite4ever said, follow the money.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 8:41 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

Wow

Thats… Just wow. Partly one reason I try not to read, listen to, o watch any news source that leans one way or another. But damn! Thats just slimy.

by Pingl000 on Nov 8, 2011 9:11 AM EST reply actions  

Fantastic piece

, simply fantastic piece. I appreciate that you shared it.

Tony

by Anthonyesq on Nov 8, 2011 9:17 AM EST reply actions  

Hmm...


It all makes sense now.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 9:20 AM EST reply actions  

Paterno and all of Penn St remind me

of those Cardinals and Bishops during the Catholic Priest boy raping scandal in Boston (and elsewhere). Just swept shit under the rug, had full knowledge and did nothing to stop it. Let it happen for years, I dunno what to say.

Go Orange(men)!

by SUmonkey on Nov 8, 2011 9:28 AM EST reply actions  

The more I hear about it

the more Im convinced that these people all knew and just looked the other way. If JoPa knew, reported it and nothing came of it – I cant believe he didnt take it further.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 10:12 AM EST up reply actions  

I think JoePa told himself he did his part.

He reported it like he should have and that was enough in his mind because it was now in the hands of people more capable. After that, he turned back into the insular world of being a coach and buried his head.

Now, that is just my opinion on the matter obviously, but how else do you explain reporting something like that and then never questioning why nothing came of it?

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 11:39 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it is becoming clear that JoPa did know

He told the AD, and that was it for him. Took no other steps after seeing it being swept under the rug, assumed his job was finished and that’s the issue.

Don’t think he personally broke any laws, but man it is hard to side with him on this.

Go Orange(men)!

by SUmonkey on Nov 8, 2011 2:40 PM EST up reply actions  

This works both ways Sean

Here in CT, with all the submarine technology and UTC companies there is a lot of people with insight into nuclear power. Following the earthquake in Japan there was a huge uproar about nuclear power and how dangerous it is. Its amazing the hype people will believe. Firstly, the system behaved as it was designed and only leaked irradiated (not radioactive) steam. Meaning it had been exposed to radiation but was not releasing radiation. Food out of the microwave is irradiated. Then they were talking about the levels of exposure people in Japan were experiencing. Those levels were comparable to 8 min in a tanning bed. However, “nuclear experts” were on TV talking about how this was as bad as Chernobyl. People were freaking out. What they didnt realize is that their expertise was from anti-nuclear groups and if you follow the money, they are funded by big oil and the coal companies. France gets no electricity from fossil fuels. Save for a bit of wind power, they are all nuclear. If they wanted to switch over to electric cars, they could do so easily and without needing to burn dirty coal to do so.

And dont get me started on global warming (I was supposed to have beach front property by now!)

With Sex Slavery, the numbers are very hard to project because anything illegal is impossible to measure. You can only estimate. I dont think its right to attack classifieds for providing a forum for this any more than it would be right to shut down gardening centers for providing people the tools with which to grow pot. It must be safer for the girls (and boys) to be online than on the street. Personally, I think trying to stop this will be a fruitless as the war on drugs. Everyone seems to be coming around on the idea that we should legalize drugs (at least pot) and regulate it, but no one in this country seems to think we should legalize prostitution. I know we were founded by puritans, but thats really the only way I see to curtail all the awful things that go along with this industry being underground.

I do believe that someone needs to come out and clarify these things because there are a lot of people in our country who do not do their own research and take hyperbole as fact. People watch Glenn Beck and cant distinguish – then I have to hear about how Obama has a secret army and he wants to take over the country turning it into USSR2.0. Or people who watch Bill Maher’s rants and take jokes about GW doing blow in the White House as “our President was coked up when he started the war.” Its irresponsible to not assume how susceptible the average American is to sensationalism (how dumb people are).

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 10:11 AM EST reply actions  

Legalize Prostitution?

That’s your response to this? Really? Or am I not catching your drift?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 10:15 AM EST up reply actions  

most of my post was about sensationalizing

reports and readers taking those exaggerations as fact. From what I have read, the sex trade is horrible. However, I do not think a War on Sex Slavery would be any more fruitful than The War on Drugs has been. So yes, long term I think we need to treat this the same way people are trying to do with marijuana and regulate it through legitimate channels where there is licensing, testing and oversight. The people who sell their bodies are going to do so regardless and those who seek them out will continue to do so. Like with pot in California, why would those people go to a shady illegal source when they could get it through a legitimate legal outlet? That’s what we do in Nevada. Europe and Australia are the same way. When there are legal options, it takes a lot of the associated crime out of the equation.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Want to Understand this More

So, you don’t think legalizing marijuana and prostitution will make it more pervasive? That is, that the practices of smoking marijuana and prostituion will remain at the same level or lessen in the long run by legalizing it?

Or, you think that legalizing them will make them more pervasive, but that’s okay, as long as it’s not criminal activity?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions  

If there are 300,000

child sex slaves in this country, I dont think the client base could get any bigger. I believe a big part of why there are so many children out there is because they are impressionable and exploitable. Were it an actual industry, children would not be allowed to work in it. Thats the key, getting the kids out. Let people old enough to decide that is what they want to do engage in that activity. Consenting adults.

As for if it gets more pervasive, it may but I doubt it. Anyone who wants to do it is already doing it, on both fronts. I think Prohibition proved that making something illegal that people want only leads to other crime. That addicts will still find a way to get their fix and responsible adults who can handle it will be left out because of the actions of those addicts causing it to be made illegal. Its like if guns were banned because they are used in crime, the only people left with guns would be criminals. So pot heads still get pot. If it were legal, I wouldnt smoke it – but I know some people who would from time to time. Not in any way that would impact their quality of life or those around them.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Really?

You said you doubt it would get more pervasive but then said some responsible adults would get their hands on it if it was legal. That sounds like more pervasive to me.

“Reponsible adults” should be able to smoke dope and crack occassionally, or some pot, if they want to because it won’t affect their life like it does illegal users?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

I think you have to use

alcohol as the example. If it was illegal, you would have smugglers, people making moonshine and even drinking listerine. Those people feed the addicts. The alcoholics. The social drinkers and the glass of champagne on new years crowd would be SOL, because they are not motivated to seek it out and the risk is not worth the reward. When booze was made illegal, I dont think the number of alcoholics went down. With pot, which I dont use and wouldnt, I doubt the number of pot heads would go up as the legality of something would not change the genetic predisposition to addiction. Those addicts are already seeking it out. Its the once in a while crowd that is missing out. so in that sense the use would go up but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the pot heads who are already pot heads.

50% of our country doent pay taxes. I dont think its going to be the end of days if they start getting legal (taxed) pot instead of paying a dealer cash.

(this is all going to bit me in the ass if I ever decide to get into politics haha)

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't know

If I believe myself to be a “once in a while” or “social smoker” but have never smoked pot because it’s illegal, and then try pot becasue I’m at a party, everyone’s having fun and it’s now legalized, don’t my chances of becoming an addict increase significantly?

Or if I am not the “addict type,” doesn’t a legalized drug have a much higher chance of finding the potential addict than an illegal one?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Besides the fact that marijuana isn’t addictive at all?

Even if what you say is true there, it still doesn’t matter to me. In my opinion, it’s not the government’s job to keep you from hurting yourself. Hurting others, yes, but not hurting yourself. The government is not my mommy or my daddy. People need to be free to make choices — even if they make the wrong choices.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Again,

does drug use really just hurt the user? And even if it did just hurt the user, is that the measurement on if a community should take action or not?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions  

But there are already laws that cover hurting others. We don’t feel the need to make alcohol illegal, even though there’s clearly many times that people other than the drinker are hurt.

Around 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill wrote “On Liberty”. One of the main themes has come to be known as the “Harm Principle”, which goes as follows:

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

The last sentence is the key. We have a lot of choices in life. Sometimes we make the right ones, and sometimes we make the wrong ones. But if we’re not free to make those choices… then we’re not very free.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Ah,

but the greatest question is what do we use our freedom’s for? Are we given freedom as a people to do whatever we want to do or to use our freedom to do what is right?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

If we only have the freedom to do what others feel is right, it’s not freedom.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Not talking

about what people FEEL is right. Talking about what IS right. And if there is no such thing as and objective right and wrong, why do we have laws to begin with?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

To protect others from your actions. The old “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.

And what is “right” to one person is not the same as what is “right” to another. Your argument against marijuana seems to be the old circular “it’s bad because it’s illegal” and “it’s illegal because it’s bad”.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Not really

Things are wrong if they are wrong and right if they are right, regardless if they are illegal or not.

I think everyone on this board would say that Child prostitution is wrong whether it’s illegal or not

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

But right and wrong are not set things. There is no list of “This is what’s right” and “This is what’s wrong”. You feel that marijuana use is wrong. You feel that prostitution is wrong. I don’t feel that either one is wrong. Why is your definition of right and wrong any better than mine?

Child prostitution is definitely wrong. It should also definitely be illegal under my theory. Why? Because the child can’t consent.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Why are right

and wrong “not set things?” You just gave me an example of something that’s wrong that is a set thing.

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 12:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

LT, an old man now, was arrested for having sex with a 16 year old. In other states that would have been legal because she would have been old enough to consent. Was it right? What about other countries where the age of consent is even lower? Its a slippery slope.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 12:33 PM EST up reply actions  

There are some things you know in your gut. Some priorities are primal.

Imagine a group of social animals. A herd of cattle. Or elephants. Or deer. Or Triceratops.

A predator appears. They can’t run. What do they do?

They go into a circle. The males go to the outside, weapons facing out. The alpha male goes out to face the predator alone. If he wins, the herd is protected. If he loses, his sacrifice may still have still protected it. Someone else then gets his job.

The females are behind the males. They, too, face out.

What’s at the centre of the circle? What are they all protecting?

The young.

Males test each themselves on each other. They have their jousts and their horseplay. These contests are between rivals not enemies. They are testing their prowess, building their skills, establishing their hierarchy. Males get in the habit of forming protocols. Many of their fights are not to the death. They fight other males of their own species who are on the same side. They learn when to attack and when to shut off the attack and let their rival stand back up. All of this gets them ready for that day when they stand on the outside of the circle, and the fight is real.

It’s often been observed that females of many species don’t observe protocols when they fight. When females fight it’s personal, it’s fierce, and it’s total. Why? Because she is the last line of defence. When the fight reaches her, it’s desperate. The females have no backup. They are the last line of defence. After them, it’s the young.

I find this picture useful and illuminating. There is wisdom in it. It’s a picture worth keeping in one’s head. It’s good to consult it whenever moral questions arise.

We are social animals.

Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->

by Abiaka Windclan on Nov 9, 2011 9:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes

It will be easier to get. But really how much easier? In my high school there were 4 or 5 kids who sold pot. If you want to try it, youre gonna try it. If you find out its your thing youre going to do it. If not, youre not. Do you want to know why those kids sold pot? Because it was illegal. it made them feel like a gangster and they drove around in their 3 series that their parents bought them and listened to gangster rap. Their folks would have just given them the money, but they did it because it was taboo and they felt i made them cool. So there is the flip side to the coin where those kids will stop.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Legalizing prostitution is one thing. (Something I would support.)

But these articles mostly dealt with underage sex trafficking. Do you really think legalizing prostitution involving pre-teens is a good idea? I can’t really compare this issue to drugs because prosecuting drug users is prosecuting someone for harming themselves. Prosecuting sex traffickers and those who utilize the trade is prosecuting people for harming other people, not themselves.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Does drug use

really just only harm the user or does it harm others too? Same with question with prostitution.

And if they really just harm those involved, which I do not believe for one second, should it still be legalized? Would that be truly helpful?

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I dont think the point is helping anyone

The point is bringing it out of the dark and into the light so that the associated corruption can be cleaned up. I dont smoke pot and dont care if someone gets it from CVS or a dealer. I care that we have over crowded prisons, that there are farmers who need work and that there are border agents and people in Mexico getting murdered every day. That kids in my own town have gotten beat up for not paying their dealers.

With prostitution, you have shady pimps manipulating middle and high school girls and putting them out on the street where no one can watch them and they have to fear for their lives as they get into a strangers car. Making it legal means you have a consenting adult woman who applied for the job working at a safe place like the Bunny Ranch they show on HBO.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Well,

if prostitution is legal, you no longer have shady pimps, that’s for sure. You just have pimps. And what gets even better? You get more of them because they can make good money legally!

What a sexually open Utopia we would have!

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Can I ask you something?

I don’t want to hear any answer that boils down to “Because it’s wrong” or “Because it’s illegal”.

A 25 year old woman, without being coerced, freely wants to have sex with men (or women, hey, lets be open here) for money.

Why shouldn’t she be able to do that?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

I’ll change the question then: She freely wants to have sex with other men for money, on the condition that they use condoms. What else do you have?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 12:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Do you want a world where we have to go to the government and ask “Please, daddy, can I do _______” every time we make a choice?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 12:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Heck No

And I don’t have to do that now, even while prostitution and marijuana is illegal

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

So why is it okay to have sex for money in front of a camera, but not have sex for money without the presence of a camera?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't recall

saying that ponography was good either

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Ah, so you’re a true nanny stater.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I think my whole point

in legalizing prostitution, and the best thing about the porn industry is that it keeps kids out of it as much as possible. Same with pot, get the crime out of it. Adults can be drafted, vote, have a credit card and make up their own damned mind.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the Porn industry

Is a good place to start looking. Regulated. Must be 18. Testing. They said on the radio it was even totally shut down because of an HIV scare.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

There is some truth there.

The drug trade clearly doesn’t just harm the users (look at Mexico). But prosecuting the users isn’t really an effective way of dealing with the problem was more what I was saying.

In the case of drugs I do think there is something to be said for legalizing marijuana carefully and finding a way to deal with regulating doses of heroine/cocaine/etc to addicts in an effort to get them help.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Harm to others

IMO, is primarily a byproduct of drugs being illegal. The reason why there are drug wars is because there is no regulation of the trade. It’s not like the cartels can take their disputes to court. I mean, look at how competitive tobaccos companies are, or Coke and Pepsi. It’s no less competitive than rival drug cartels, and you don’t see Phillip Morris waging gun battles in the street.

If marijuana were legalized, you can bet your bottom dollar that Big Tobacco would be all over it immediately. And it would be regulated to death. It would render the drug trade, and the violence that goes with it, obsolete. The way I see it is like this. There are drug wars because there’s a lot of money at stake. There’s are lot of money because drugs sell at a high price. They sell at a high price because they’re illegal. So, legalize it, and not only does the incentive to wage a drug war become less, but those who operate in that busniess have other means to resolve those conflicts.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Nov 8, 2011 1:32 PM EST up reply actions  

and if we are following the money

The people who really want to block legalization of drug use are a) the liquor companies who will lose market share to a new competitor and b) the pharmaceutical companies who dont want to see people turn to holistic remedies rather than buying their new prescription drugs. Everyone has an agenda

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

And © Religious folk. See Bootleggers and Baptists (or Baptists and Bootleggers). Been true since alcohol prohibition.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

No no no!

Sorry, gosh I didnt mean to come off as saying legalize child sex workers. Adults through legitimate channels so it would be an exchange between two consenting adults. Why would someone illegally solicit a child when they could legally go to a licensed adult? As I said in another post, I believe in this shady industry children are brought in because they are impressionable and easy to exploit. ie Lawrence Taylor was looking for an escort. I do not think he requested a 16 year old. he said she told him she was 18. Now had this been in Nevada, that 16 year old would not have been allowed to work and he could have gone to a legitimate outlet and found a consenting adult.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

That much I agree with.

In as much as the industry being regulated and sanitized through legitamization (did I just make up a word?) I think prostitution should be legal. Many of the underage in the system are likely there because it is easier to control and capture them into the system.

Now I do think it will always be something to be concerned with at some level as there are always going to be people who go out of their way to find kids, not adults, to get their jollys.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

People would still solicit children

because they are sick or they are predators. Same reasons they do it now. Not every pederast is a lonely person who can’t get laid by an adult.

Victor Cruz is the 2011 Ahmad Bradshaw. He giveth, and he taketh away.

by bigbluethruandthru on Nov 9, 2011 12:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Right.

It’s a myth that child sexual abuse is perpetuated by socially withdrawn individuals who lack access to adults.

The best predictor of child abuse is child abuse itself. A high proportion of predators were themselves abused as children.

Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->

by Abiaka Windclan on Nov 9, 2011 9:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Missing my point

Yes there are people out there who are into kids. But, I dont think the majority of people who use call girls are looking for that particular fetish. They are tired of not getting it from their wives or looking for a change. I dont think you will ever eliminate all underage girls, but if given the option, most “Johns” would rather go to a licensed brothel with of age girls than illegally get an underage girl.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 9, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions  

It was more

to illustrate that while the cause is just, making points that exaggerate numbers to strike a chord with readers and make your message more dramatic may help in the short term, but in the long run it both discredits you as a source and compromises the validity of your argument.

Is the point that we shouldn’t care so much because there are only 50,000 child sex slaves in this country instead of 300,000? Is that supposed to make us feel better?

No. But raising statistics by a factor of 6 is only going to hurt your case. Back to global warming, because the ocean was supposed to rise 20 feet by now. The beach I have been going to since I was a kid hasnt changed 20 feet. Maybe if you told me 3 inches, Id believe you. But for saying 20 feet, and then it not being so, Im no longer inclined to listen to any more about the subject or from the source.

With the Sex trade, if there was a massive push and they got 50,000 underage sex workers out of the racket, effectively eliminating the industry, would we celebrate it or be stuck wondering “what about the other 250,000 kids that may or may not exist?”

With Sandusky, if it had been initially reported that he raped 48 kids, he would he a monster. But then if it came out that it was actually 8 kids, people would begin questioning the media outlets and the validity of the case against Sandusky. False information for the sake of effect can be just a damning even if it is for a just cause.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I think you said it yourself

“If they got 50,000 kids” out of the sex trade? Heck yeah, that would be celebrated! 250,000 is better than 300,000. And like Sean said, 299,999 is better that 300,000 as well.

And stopping a man from harming 8 kids is just as important

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

but if the actual number was only 50k

what happens to the fictional 250k kids? And if 48 (6 times) kids were actually reported and the truth was 8, that type of misinformation has left disgusting guys like this walk free in court.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Hey, I agree with you

We should be talking facts as much as possible and not sensationalizing numbers just to get a response. No matter what the issue is.

But this guy never walks for “just” harming 8 kids as opposed to 48. Doesn’t matter what the initial report is.

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 11:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Back to global warming, because the ocean was supposed to rise 20 feet by now.

I’m not sure to what you are referring. Most reasonable figures point to increments of 50-100 years out seeing that level. I don’t even think Gore ever said we would see the oceans rise that much this quickly. Some media may have blown things out of proportion, but there was plenty push-back saying it was all a myth perpetuated by evil atheist scientists who only wanted our precious grant money. I think the exaggerations evened themselves out quite nicely.

When it comes to something like sex trafficking though, these things are nearly impossible to pin down. The fact that it happens at all is a problem. And this seems like an awkward case to make:

With Sandusky, if it had been initially reported that he raped 48 kids, he would he a monster. But then if it came out that it was actually 8 kids, people would begin questioning the media outlets and the validity of the case against Sandusky.

The argument is that because he actually raped 8 kids, not a hypothetical 48, the media is to blame for calling him a monster? He is a monster either way. And keep in mind, as with rape in general, the numbers tend to be well below what is reported for all kinds of reasons. There could easily be several more individuals who have decided to stay mum because they are embarassed, scared, traumatized and/or uninterested in revisiting it all. The difference with Sandusky and the sex trade though, is that with Sandusky there is something to focus on and pin down. There is simply now way to know just how pervasive the sex trade is anywhere. There can only be estimations at best. But it does exist and many of the victims are children or teenagers. That’s enough of a problem for it to get all the attention in the world.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Nov 8, 2011 11:15 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

The global warming ex was to illustrate how these things get exaggerated for the sake of scaring people. Its something I was told in high school by my teachers and there were stories that said 20 feet. I remember because it was all the buzz at LBI one summer.

As for the 48 vs 8, it was probably not the best example. It wouldnt work legally, but it was more to illustrate how it would damage the credibility of the source and in the long run, the cause.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 8, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually the first global warming activists

in the 60’s and 70’s predicted England would be underwater by now. In the 70’s the Earth was cooling, so they were trying to figure out ways to trap greenhouse gasses to warm up the atmosphere. I think the point is that people do exaggerate and fear-monger because it is massively profitable to do so, so try to stick to concrete facts when possible. But I honeslty don’t think that if the media portrayed 48 kids and it only turned out to be one, that Sandusky would look less like a monster.

Victor Cruz is the 2011 Ahmad Bradshaw. He giveth, and he taketh away.

by bigbluethruandthru on Nov 9, 2011 12:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Not less of a monster

but the outlet that reported it would look less credible.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Nov 9, 2011 10:20 AM EST up reply actions  

A Microcosm of American Society

Well done, Sean.

We need more responses like this.

It’s amazing what we as Americans (even a minority of Americans) can convince ourselves to accept and live with if we can just adjust the argument to suit our position.

But I still wonder, why do things have to go this far in our nation before we decide that something is wrong? I mean, are no lines drawn on right and wrong before this point?

Oh, I guess there is no such thing as right and wrong. The only thing of value in this country is an opposing viewpoint and an alternate perspective

by orijinal on Nov 8, 2011 10:12 AM EST reply actions  

I will say this.

I support the right of VVM to run backpage.com and run sex ads. I was angered by the government more or less forcing Craigslist to do away with their own adult ads [which were never done way with, they’ve just been pushed further underground]. Why? Child sex trafficking is a horrible, horrible thing. But part of it does come because adult, consensual prostitution is illegal. Right now, everything’s underground, and everything’s mixed together — both adult and child prostitution.Legalize adult prostitution and bring that into the open, and it’s going to become far easier to go after what’s underground.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

by wildcatlh on Nov 8, 2011 11:29 AM EST reply actions  

Good article. I actually interviewed at Backpage years ago (they didn’t hire me).

by Jeepers44 on Nov 8, 2011 11:42 AM EST reply actions  

Protect the young. In any society, this is the prime directive.

Fail at that and you fail at everything.

Abiaka Windclan
>>>---------------------------------->

by Abiaka Windclan on Nov 8, 2011 12:52 PM EST reply actions  

Very well written article

Terrible subject, but good job. There have been some odd articles in the Stranger over the years that I thought were influenced by outside money as well. Kudos for doing the research on VVM.

by wvucheryl on Nov 8, 2011 5:54 PM EST reply actions  

Finally got to read this.

Well done, Sean.

This article and thread alone are a testament to how insightful, respectful, intelligent, and common-sensible this community is.

I’m sickened by this story, but I am proud that this is the only place I’ve seen on the Web where this whole subject is being discussed with real thought.

The 'Cuse is in tha house, oh my God oh my God.

by StrawHatGuy on Nov 8, 2011 7:00 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Syracuse football, basketball & lacrosse blog.

FanPosts

FanPosts

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Higgins Retiring!
Best post I've read on tv money yet
Dwight Freeney Moving to OLB
Chandler Jones signs his first contract with Pats
"Florida State Killing the ACC"
Aaron Weaver signed by the Chiefs
Scoop to participate in the Knicks' first pre-draft workout
More Gloria Allred Shenanigans
We Really Do Hate Greg Robinson...
Blogging Class Videos Now Available

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Managers

181432_10150419917295241_697840240_17208169_5038380_n_small Sean Keeley

Editors

Hotdogangry_small Hoya Suxa

181959_1884051901099_1235420154_2201555_5066342_n_small Dan Lyons

Authors

Dome_small_small ShariCuse

Bleedingorangelogo_small FeloniousPhunk

Carmelo JohnCassillo

309758_236243686430221_100001337742137_597711_1978115663_n_small Apregs

Me_small Matt McClusky