"which sends an inordinately large number of sex workers and traffickers to New York each year."

And the phrase is actually SEVERE SEX TRAFFICKING, because plain old 'sex trafficking' is just a legal classification used to persecute prostitutes who travel. Here is the applicable section of the US code:

The author of this piece doesn't seem to understand how john shools work. Unless prostitution has been decriminalized in NY, which it hasn't, prostitutes are STILL being arrested while clients are given the option of paying for a class to avoid a criminal charge. The paying for the class- the fines that are doled…

Mostly what you should feel is skeptical.

But it makes the kyriarchy run super smooth.

So many people think this shit is about what it takes to 'succeed' in the world, but really it's about what helps to keep you out of jail.

Yes. Let's shut down the all the ways people might be rescued. Kristof profits off of that. Profits off of making it damn near impossible to find victims and prosecute the victimizers. Yes, he's such a fucking hero.

I'd be very surprised if this was ever labelled as human trafficking considering the CC has played a huge role in defining in law what exactly trafficking is and isn't. Migrant prostitution = trafficking, Coerced/forced births and adoptions? Not so much.

Speaking of rooms full of religious dudes discussing and deciding on women's health issues, check out this vid with clips of the U.S. Congress doing the same thing. (Possible trigger warning)

I'm 100% supportive of word reclamation, as is obvious, and I also 100% agree with you. Whore is a label to be claimed, not assigned. The label assigned in any way, let alone in the way you cite from this article, is imo beyond reprehensible.

I second this request.

This makes me think of Angry Birds. I want to pop the balloons cuz those presents are worth 3000 points each!

Basically, ok, like, they were judging which is most disliked - modestly dressed attractive woman, sexily dressed attractive woman, or sexily dressed fat woman - of course the sexily dressed attractive woman and the fat woman are the same woman and it's only a photo that has been manipulated to make her appear bigger.…

Dang the whole 'sexy' vs. 'sexy-fat' aspect isn't even mentioned here. Apparently the study also says women would be more willing to leave their boyfriends alone with a slutty-looking fat chick than a slutty-looking thin chick.

Me too, it's like I need it to live or something!

The source article says it leads to casual sex. So my question is how does casual sex = slutty = risky behavior? The layers of WTF truly astound.

Agreed as well - you took the words out of my mouth in fact. I'm so far beyond sick of that crap that heartily is a faint memory.

This sort of stuff just exacerbates the problem. I mean whoever does the dang survey and the media for reporting it, all that just exacerbates the problem. It's like, what's the point? Just to get people talking about how only sad low-self esteem having people are the ones who sext? Or to get people talking about how…

Gosh what a surprising amount of prohibitionist rhetoric on this thread.

Well you've come to the right place because this article is obviously NOT a pity party for a woman whose elective cosmetic surgery went wrong. A pity party would actually involve some pity or even - dare I say - empathy. That you confuse mockery and derision for 'pity' is probably the least of your issues.