The Evil Behind the Smiles

[doowopbloopy]

The Evil Behind the Smiles
By Nicholas D. Kristof

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia

Western men who visit red-light districts in poor countries often find themselves surrounded by coquettish teenage girls laughingly tugging them toward the brothels. The men assume that the girls are there voluntarily, and in some cases they are right.

But anyone inclined to take

Comments

[fimh]

sex trafficking IS legit slavery, jeez how can someone be so blind not to see that?

[doowopbloopy]

oh man, shoot me, i have an opinion. i feel like it should be separated as a subject and not lumped together under the all-encompassing umbrella of the term, slavery. it's so much more prevalent/well known than any other types of slavery that calling it slavery just makes it - and all other forms of slavery - idk, less of what it is.

[rreminiscent]

..but it is slavery. and putting "sex trafficking" under the general umbrella of slavery doesn't make it less of what it is, or make slavery less of what it is. it just makes it a subtype of slavery. it's still separated from general "hard labor" slavery, because, yeah, they're different, and still separated from the slavery that child soldiers endure, but just because sex slavery is different from these types of slavery does not mean it shouldn't be considered slavery.

just because some people are ignorant and believe that "general" slavery was abolished when lincoln said so, doesn't mean that we should falsely change the definition of sex slavery so that they understand. it's like saying that insects should no longer be categorized under the term of "animal" because most people think of animals as dogs, cats, etc. but insects DO fit the specifications to be considered animals, no matter how we generally stereotype animals to be.

[doowopbloopy]

"just because some people are ignorant.."

but when it's most of america who would be confused? i'm sorry i don't have much faith in our/my nation's intelligence level.

yeah, it's slavery, but we should call it by its individual name to AVOID any possible confusion. you give an example of how an insect is still categorized under the term animal, but when you talk about insects, do you generally call it an animal? no. not really.

i guess i should clarify that i don't believe we should change the definition of slavery and sex trafficking and their relationship. in fact, if i led people to believe that, i'm sorry. i just think we need to be as clear as possible so as to NOT confuse the masses.

[rreminiscent]

well most people do say "sex trafficking" when they are referring to that, not slavery. it is separated. i guess we all just had a misunderstanding. i, at least, thought you were just saying that sex trafficking should not be considered slavery, which just doesn't make sense to me. but i agree with you that sex trafficking should be called by it's name, as should other types of slavery.. i just don't see where that wasn't happening.

[doowopbloopy]

i just didn't agree with nicholas kristof saying that sex trafficking = THE slavery of the 21st century.

case in point: Sex trafficking is truly the 21st century’s version of slavery. One of the differences from 19th-century slavery is that many of these modern slaves will die of AIDS by their late 20s.

i was just really angry at that point. maybe i should have clarified myself better.

[fizzy_pepsi]

I will say that the first sentence of what you quoted should have been left out of the article. Not only are there many different forms of slavery still in existence, but various forms of sexual slavery have also existed for hundreds of years. It's not the 21st century's "version" of anything.

[fizzy_pepsi]

Not to mention syphilis was the AIDS of the 19th century, so perhaps that second sentence could have been altered as well....

[kali921]

oh man, shoot me, i have an opinion.

It's not that you have an opinion. It's that you're doing an incredibly poor job of explicating clearly and convincingly why your viewpoint is compelling. Instead, you're just copying and pasting the same comment to almost everyone who disagrees with you.

[doowopbloopy]

well please tell me why i would comment differently for everyone who disagrees with me.. who just so happen to be saying the same thing?

should i have just broken my argument down into 3+ parts and pasted different parts for different people and then just made it REALLY confusing? shit, should've done that.