The Priorities of the Professional #Traffickinghub Crusaders

I used to fall for the kind of talking points regurgitated by the professional #Traffickinghub crusaders. Starting decades ago, I was on-board with their alarmism, their insistence that we are/were in a crisis. I've been closely observing the current personalities involved for many years now. [This was originally posted in June 2022.]

On the surface, it seems like the professional #Traffickinghub crusaders are extremely concerned about assault (rape, molestation, etc.). After all, that's one of the reasons for "trafficking."

But when they consistently ignore or refuse to focus on actual cases of rape and molestation at churches, schools, daycares, and other places, and instead take every opportunity to bash adult media, when they constantly use social media services to get attention and donations when those very services have had exponentially more of the very things these crusaders claim necessitates shutting down a porn site and criminally prosecuting its executives, things don't make sense until you consider that perhaps their goal isn't addressing assault, but rather amassing donations by attacking adult media.

It's been years since the "#Traffickinghub" campaign started, and their petition has been online. YEARS. What has happened with all of that time, up until this posting?

• PornHub removed unverified videos (such as those uploaded by users like your neighbor, often videos pirated from other users or websites) and will only allow videos posted by verified producers. Of course the professional Traffickinghub crusaders consider this a victory.
• Credit card companies no longer allow PornHub viewers to pay for their porn (and thereby pay performers) using their credit cards. Of course this has been seen as another victory by the crusaders, although they shifted to complaining that the credit cards are still involved through the ads on PornHub.
• Laila Mickelwait, who was touted as Director of Abolition at Exodus Cry, started something called the Justice Defense Fund.
  
• Laila Mickelwait has gotten a lot of attention from certain journalists and certain government hearings.
• Laila Mickelwait/Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, and other organizations have continued to rake in donations.
• Laila Mickelwait has gotten social media mentions each time someone has signed her petition.
• Laila Mickelwait has broadened from focusing on PornHub to more adult media sites.
  
• PornHub is still online.
• PornHub executives haven't been arrested or charged with any crimes.
• People are still being raped and molested. I'm not aware of a single incident of any such crime being stopped by professional Traffickinghub crusaders.
  
• Videos of rapes, molestation, and "revenge porn" are still all over the Internet. I'm not aware of a single incident of any such crime being stopped by professional Traffickinghub crusaders.
• Performers have been inconvenienced and deprived of money.
• A man went on a mass murder spree at a massage business, and told investigators what sounds like Traffickinghub talking points.
  

Why, it's almost like this is all about lining the pockets and stroking the egos of a few people who have a religious objection to adult media, and not actually helping anyone else.

Laila Mickelwait constantly asserts that PornHub is a "crime scene" full of rape videos (despite the fact that they only have videos from verified producers), tries to harass advertisers and credit card companies, and even tries to get search engines to pretend that PornHub doesn't exist.

Why, considering social media platforms, churches, schools, and other adult websites have an exponentially more serious problem than PornHub ever did? Might it be because PornHub is the most popular and well-known porn site? Might it be that the goal is getting donations, especially from churchgoers and social media users?

It all makes more sense when considering that Exodus Cry's roots are in churches that have a negative fixation on adult media, often to the point of preaching against it more than sloth, envy, greed, gluttony, and gossip combined.

Yes, I’d Date A Transgender Person

PragerU has asked “Would you date a transgender person?”

We have to remember what makes someone transgender.

If someone claims to be transgender, we have to accept that they are.

If someone who has XX chromosomes, developed breasts, a clitoris, vulva, vagina, no penis/testicles/facial hair, appears feminine, hasn’t undergone surgery or hormone treatment to reduce femininity and gain masculinity, is attracted to men including me; basically, “assigned female at birth,” and had been living life entirely as a girl/woman until now, and was now claiming to be a trans man… sure, I’d date that person.

It also helps to remember that even if I found myself unmarried, I wouldn’t be looking for a wife or even an exclusive girlfriend, so it wouldn’t matter much to me what the person would say or think, as long as I found them attractive, they weren’t a threat, and they were willing to do what I’d want to do on a date.

I have zero interest in being with someone whose “vagina” was surgically constructed. Natural vaginas have certain qualities I desire. I have a classmate who posts on social media pictures of where their penis used to be, and describes the problems with what’s there now. No thanks!

The brains of women are different than the brains of men.

I’m into women. Women who were “AFAB.” And yes, If I was free I’d date a transgender person who is as I described early in this post.

Stay Strong, Unmarried Men

For all of you men who are not currently married, this is one of those times of the year family and certain cultural elements push you to marry.

One way is trying to make it seem like everybody gets married, that marriage should be your goal, and that only losers don’t marry. 

Jewelry companies run ads promoting the ridiculous notion that engagement rings make perfect holiday gifts. There are legal reasons why that’s a terrible idea.

Don’t fall for the trap.

If you’re engaged, don’t let the manipulations during this time of year push you into signing a terrible state contract (marrying).

Nor should you make any large purchases for, or with a woman. Want to buy something for your mother? Go ahead. But not a fiancée, not a girlfriend, or any other woman you’ve been seeing.

Don’t propose. Don’t co-sign a lease or mortgage or anything. Don’t move in with a woman or let her move in with you.

Stay free.

Follow the tags for this post, like “Free Men” and “Marriage Strike” and “Running Game” to be reminded why you should stay free and how to make the most of this time of year.

As always, feel free to comment. 

When Someone Regrets Being a Parent

Duncan Jones recently issued a couple of controversial tweets: [This entry is bumped up from January 2019.]

I have 2 kids. 2 1/2 years and 9 months old respectively. I’ll tell you something I never see anyone admit... they are exhausting, frustrating and life-destabilizing. They are rarely fun. Sure, smiles are great, hugs are lovely, but it’s HARD and not obviously a good choice in life.

This is where people feel compelled to say “i wouldn’t change it for the world!” But you know... Of course I’d reconsider! It’s exhausting! Its banal! It’s like looking after a dog you can’t housetrain. What it is, is that it is. and they are mine. Hopefully they turn out ok.

Columnist Matt Walsh, conservative Catholic hubby and dad that he is, lit into Jones and those who responded in solidarity.

What's most concerning is the reaction these tweets provoked. In the 24 hours or so immediately after they were published, a sizable portion of the responses were entirely supportive and sympathetic. A bunch of parents decided to join the fray and register public complaints about their own children. Until saner voices joined the discussion, the thread was a long litany of unseemly parental bellyaching. And not just vague "parenting can be tough" type complaints, but much more specific and personal "my life is miserable and my kids are awful" type complaints.

Those are their experiences. Yes, they shouldn't say these things if they are using their true identity and thus their kids can find out about it. In some cases, it won't matter because the kids are already too far gone, but in most cases, sure. But let's be honest. Walsh isn't just upset that their kids might see this. People like Walsh don't want people speaking the truth about parenthood: that for some people, it brings misery. Some people aren't suited to it.

Let's not deflect from the fact that many people regret having children. Many of them aren't being great parents as a result. Let's encourage people to think very carefully about becoming parents, instead  of saying "Oh, it will all work out! You'll love it! Don't worry, just do it!"

Women who do this are told they're ignoring their motherly instincts. Men are told they're just immature.

Is Divorcing Over Infertility Justified?

On X, I saw a screenshot of what appeared to be a Reddit post from a wife whose husband is divorcing her over infertility.

The X account was appalled at what the man was doing.

If you say that marriage is for procreation, indeed multiplying (and you mean by that creating three or more children), then isn’t their marriage invalid? Isn’t he right to end it and seek another bride?

Adoption isn’t multiplying. Someone else has already had the child. Adoption can be a beautiful thing, but it’s not multiplying.

Multiplying is conceiving more children, and according to a popular pastor I’ve heard, it’s having three or more children, presumably those children living long enough to repeat the cycle.

If you’re a philosophical naturalist or have any other overarching beliefs about reality that indicate the “point” of life is to perpetuate your genes, then of course he should do what it takes to spread his genes. Most Western women aren’t going to support or even tolerate him doing that with another woman while still married to her. Would this man’s wife support using “third party” reproduction so ensure his genes continue?

Worldview matters here. If the point of life/marrying is multiplying or perpetuating genes, he’s justified in seeking someone else.

If someone is going to say he’s obligated to stay married to this woman and NOT spread his genes through other women or “third party” reproduction, then they are admitting that multiplying is not mandatory and not a highest priority. They should also explain under what conditions divorce is permitted and hold women to those standards, not only men.

If the point of marrying is simply companionship, why involve the government?

Whatever your position on these matters, consistency will make your claims more serious to your audience.