The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so. – Gore Vidal
Sex worker rights activists have been pointing out for years that the rescue industry has a vested interest in stoking the fires of “sex trafficking” hysteria so that millions in government money flows into their coffers; to this end, they inflate statistics, create bogus studies designed to siphon funds from other programs, use dysphemisms, distorted terminology, empty-headed celebrities and more bogus studies to convince the public that sex work is a social disease, and just plain lie about sex work and sex workers in order to keep the gravy train rolling. Nor are NGOs the only beneficiaries of this lucrative witch-hunt; small countries who depend on American handouts are only too happy to throw whores and clients into prison in order to show their overlords that they’re “doing something about sex trafficking”. But in this age of belt-tightening, the U.S. government is beginning to look a little more closely at those who reap huge profits “combating” a virtually-nonexistent “problem”, and discovering – Surprise, surprise, surprise! – that they aren’t actually accomplishing anything:
An Iowa senator is calling for action after audits revealed at least six recipients of grants to fight human trafficking made unauthorized expenditures and incurred questionable costs. Six audits completed between 2007 and 2009 reported more than $2.72 million in unsupported, unallowable or questioned costs of the $8.24 million total the Department of Justice awarded to the six grant recipients. “These select individual audits signal to me that there is a bigger problem,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley…during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. “The inspector general audited seven trafficking grantees and found serious problems in all seven.”
During the hearing on the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which provides grants and resources for trafficking victims, advocates, law enforcement and prosecutors, Grassley questioned whether the Department of Justice is awarding money to the appropriate organizations. “Holding grant programs accountable will help to ensure that services really go to those in need,” Grassley…said in a statement. “Before we reauthorize another dollar, we need strong oversight language included in legislation – to ensure that failing grantees will not be rewarded with additional taxpayer dollars.”
…One audit discovered that the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs in Chicago, which was awarded $2 million, did not have adequate documentation for $902,122 in salaries and $174,479 in fringe benefits. Another inspector general audit in 2008 found that, although the Office of Justice Programs’ human trafficking grant programs have “built significant capacities to serve victims,” the programs have not “identified and served significant numbers of victims”…
…The Office for Victims of Crime, which awards grants to task forces and other grant recipients that provide direct services to victims in their communities, has developed a detailed checklist for applicants seeking money for human trafficking work…Applicants must list detailed information on the number of human trafficking victims they have previously served and disclose how long they have provided services to these victims…The office also reviews the budget and program strategy of each applicant…
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice seems to be treating these misappropriations as honest mistakes or instances of incompetence rather than recognizing them for what they are: embezzlement perpetrated via deliberate fraud. We can only hope the audits eventually uncover a number of cases too egregious to ignore, and that there is enough of an outcry to trigger criminal investigations and aggressive prosecutions. All moral panics eventually end, and this one has gone on for a decade already – longer if one recognizes that many of its themes have continued virtually unchanged since they played major roles in the Satanic Panic and domestic violence/rape epidemic hysteria of the ‘80s and ‘90s, and that “child sex trafficking” hysteria is partially an outgrowth of the child sex abuse panic (now in its 29th year). And when such panics end, they often do so in a flurry of recriminations and finger-pointing.
The signs are starting to appear, slowly but surely; online polls are overwhelmingly in favor of either legalization or decriminalization, and the comments on stories about prostitution busts range from criticism to derision to outright hostility against the police. Articles such as this one from the September 23rd Guardian are becoming much more common:
According to the documentaries running on near-constant repeat on CNN and MSNBC, men all around America are just waiting to buy women for sex, fuelling what is referred to as a “multibillion dollar industry”…Attorneys general, mayors and sheriffs across the United States are using the same tabloid statistics and rationale to set public policy. They claim that the way to end exploitation in the sex trade is to “end demand” for the sex trade – that is, end men’s desire for sex they can pay for. The notion that men’s desire to buy actual people fuels the sex trade has gone so mainstream that when aspiring celebrity philanthropist Ashton Kutcher launched a public service campaign against prostitution this year, he called it “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls“.
The problem is, real people buy sex [not people] and real people sell sex…When politicians, social service providers and celebrity philanthropists insist that sex workers are selling ourselves, they engage in the same kind of dehumanisation that they claim johns do to us. When they claim that men can buy us, they rob us of our power and our choices…Combined with the myth that all prostitution involves men buying women, the “end men’s demand” rhetoric in the media and anti-prostitution campaigns plays into some of the most damaging attitudes toward sex workers. There’s nothing feminist or new in the current wave of anti-prostitution reformers, who claim…that all sex work is “sexual enslavement”. Sex workers know that what creates demand for the sex trade is not men “enslaving” us for sex, but the…demands of childcare, loan officers, debt collectors, landlords and dependant family members – in short, the demands most working people struggle to meet…to focus only on ending men’s demand for sex is a cheap way out. In this way, sex workers’ needs are reduced only to what happens during the sex transaction; it ignores the rest of our lives outside the sex trade. By advancing this myth of male demand and sex workers being powerlessly enslaved in catering to it, the media and politicians fixate on the power of male desire more than sex workers ever do…When they base their campaigning not on the reality of the sex trade, but on their fantasies, it is sex workers who most suffer.
The comments to this article were almost entirely positive, making the few “trafficking robots” stand out like turds on a table.
But speaking of Ashton (as we have twice already in this column, so let’s go for three), if we’re lucky he may not have the money or the will to continue his anti-whore campaign for much longer:
…Sara Leal, the woman who reportedly slept with Ashton Kutcher…on…his sixth wedding anniversary [September 24th]…met with an attorney…[and] Star magazine is reporting that Kutcher’s marriage to Demi is over…the couple has been living apart and will split a $290 million fortune. Kutcher was [previously] caught cheating with 21-year-old Brittney Jones in 2010 and…[told] Leal…that he and his wife were “separated, but the public just didn’t know yet.” Ashton was in San Diego Friday night partying with friends at Fluxx nightclub and had sex with Leal at the nearby Hard Rock Hotel, according to the website TheDirty.com [which reports that Leal wants $250,000 for her story]…Leal has not decided what – if any – action she is taking but wanted to meet with an attorney “to explore all of her options”…
What’s that you say, Ashton? “Real men don’t buy girls”? Well, you sure bought this one, honey, at about 1000x the going rate (which as it so happens is the title of my column from one year ago today). If you had just hired an escort (oops, I mean “bought a girl”) instead of dealing with a halfway whore (who by your own ridiculous definition was “trafficked”, BTB) you wouldn’t be in this fix, but because you believed your own stupid propaganda you’re about to learn the hard way that free pussy is the most expensive kind.
Brilliant! I hope people realize this about Ashton and it explodes all over the Web.
Please feel free to spread the link hither and yon. 😉
“free pussy is the most expensive kind”…RIGHT! Sure hasn’t been in my case and other cases. It’s been the opposite. Before I hear any “exception” talk (Laura also thinks quickly of when she next will have the time to type at least a 100 words in regards to the “exception people”…gasp) the truth is that talk is used to distract from the truth that there’s more women who don’t fit the “free pussy” thing than is let on. Isn’t it possible that Kutcher has an arrangement with his wife? Wait…that’s a positive possibility! OH NO! That can’t be! The truth is through time there’s been non-whore women that have been with married actors (if they have an arrangement with their wives or not) who never tried to get any $’s out of it, were discreet, etc.
You are an exception. Free pussy is nearly always the most expensive kind. Exceptions do not disprove rules. Laura, normal adults understand that every rule has exceptions; it’s unnecessary and patronizing to keep reminding them of that fact. The only ones who don’t understand it are “true believers” with their own agenda anyway, so nothing you or I or anyone else says which contradicts them will make one iota of difference anyhow.
Also, you keep assuming that all costs are monetary, when they most definitely aren’t; some of the highest costs associated with most “free” pussy aren’t monetary but costs in entanglements, legal and social troubles, marital problems, etc (which can of course all lead to secondary economic costs).
Please don’t “shout” at me in all caps. I could post a list of the women who have been with married actors through time that didn’t seek any kind of $’s OR material gifts either and didn’t cause the mens’ marriages any trouble either. These women were non-whores. Speaking of whores, I could also post a lot of articles from the Internet about divorces that came from the men seeing whores. Also post articles about men who see whores who aren’t divorced and don’t have marriage problems either. Yes, there are also non-whore women who were a cause for divorces. But, the non-whore women who don’t fit this never get a mention (unless I missed someone else defending them besides me) and sometimes when they do it’s with defensiveness and the talk about exceptions that’s to minimize the whole thing. Yes, I know (after being told like a kid repeatedly) that exceptions don’t change general rules. Do you honestly think I “set out” to aggravate people when I speak up for the 1’s who are wilfully ignored too much of the time? Like I’m poking people with a stick or something all the time? I’ve said many times the % of women who can have sex without emotional attachment is a small 1. I’m acknowledging that the “rule” is that most women aren’t into that. So in at least 1 case I’ve acknowledged repeatedly the “rule” that exists. The truth is there’s more women than me who aren’t whores who have never caused the men we see any trouble including legally, socially, etc. I’m standing up for us because it’s very needed on here and also needed on other websites and off the Internet also. I agree it isn’t always a cost in $. I left that out of my earlier post (and NOT on purpose either). And the truth is there’s non-whore women like me and more besides me that haven’t caused the men we see any trouble. It’s possible Kutcher may have also been with women like this and we’re not hearing about it in the press and a reason for that is the women aren’t saying anything (to their credit).
Laura I don’t think Maggie was shouting at you. I think she was just emphasizing her point
Exactly. However, Laura is correct in pointing out that writing in all-caps is considered “shouting” in netiquette, and since that wasn’t my intention I’ve changed the caps to bold. Laura, I apologize for not thinking about that before.
Apology accepted. If you want me to completely stop talking about the “exception people” (including me) OR do it less please let me know. I’m sorry for any upset I caused anyone. Something I do want to explain: for years I’ve been dealing with people online and off who are looking for/needing information that has to do with exceptions. An example: with some types of support, there’s literally only 1 group in the whole US that has meetings in most states. Groups like this ARE literally exceptions within all support groups. This is another reason I’m so “big” on pointing out the exceptions every chance I get. Many people do want/need the information. But, on here, it’s different. I also want to defend the small groups, individuals, etc. But, the example I gave above is part of why I do this also. I’ve gotten used to doing all this on websites for years now and this is the 1st 1 I’ve run into where it’s not wanted/needed as much. Thanks for listening.
It wasn’t all caps, it was bold.
Here, Here Maggie… it is patronizing.
It was all caps at first, but I changed it to bold.
Actually, it is necessary to point out the “exceptions” (which can include small groups also, not just individuals) at times because these people deserve a voice also (just like the biggest groups). ALL groups deserve a voice just like ALL individuals. It isn’t patronizing all the time either. If it were then a lot of people online have sure been lying to me when they told me I’ve “reached them” about certain groups after speaking out. I’m not alone in that either. Also the “exceptions invalidates rules” thing is part of what’s called the “slippery slope” fallacy argument: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm Not all “true believers” are “out to get everyone” either. Many keep their “true beliefs” to themselves. I’m not going to say any more on this thread on this because if I do it’ll be self-destructive on my part plus also could upset others on here and they don’t need that. I’ve worked over time on dropping stuff online when I see certain patterns and want to keep up that work.
No, it isn’t necessary. Every rational adult knows that there are exceptions to every rule; to assume they don’t is patronizing. The result of the current fad for exhaustive listing of exceptions is cluttered, unreadable prose which makes the exceptions seem vastly more common than they are by the very fact that they’re mentioned.
I’m backing what you’ve said to Laura all the way. I wrote a post before your and her comments. It was posted after your and her comments. This is a perspective from a man. I’m sure most other men feel the same way. It’s posted below.
Dear maggie and nymphtalk, there’s at least 2 areas where what I call “exception information” is needed/wanted and those are with crime victim support/information and health problems (especially the rarer problems). I know this from years of personal experience, years of work experience and the experience of many others. In these 2 areas the information is also needed to educate the general public. It’s not patronizing in these 2 areas and also others. But, it CAN be in others, I admit and it’s not easy for me to admit this… 😉 I think overall we need to agree to disagree on this issue as it’s been brought up before on here. Thanks for your patience.
Laura, read the two comments I’ve made below. Exceptions to the rule do not disprove the rule. Although it’s every man’s fantasy to get drama free sex from a woman without a financial contribution, it is extremely rare.
I meant read the comment above and the comment below.
Maggie,
My uncle once pointed out to me the difference between a proposition and a proposal.
A proposition will cost you $50.00 (this was in 1969)
A proposal is $5.00 down and all you can earn for the rest of your life.
Pretty much. 😀
I have decided to reply to this in private e-mail. Laura, please check your e-mail.
I only post this here so that people won’t think I’m unaware of it.
http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2011/10/huh-how-about-that.html
When I saw Belle de Jour’s recent blogpost I was wondering when there was going to be a post about here.
One rule for us, another for them.
That article is the last link in my column. 😉
Hahaha I missed that!
I wonder what Aston would call a woman who wants 250,000 dollars to blab to the public about what sex was like with him?……
Personally I think Ashton and Demi had an open relationship…..but that’s another story.
I really do not understand why the U.S. acts acts this way when it comes to prostitution. For such an “industrialized” country we are very primative.
We really need to grow up. The amount of supposed “human trafficking” is extremely overblown. When there are cases of genuine human trafficking, why can’t law enforcement actually FULLY COMMIT to preventing it, instead of half assing it.
I’m willing to bet public officials and law enforcement spend more money and security at the annual Super Bowl.
They really need to stop acting like the sex business is mainly made up of sex trafficking.
Tsk tsk Ashton.
And tsk tsk is of course the sound of oh-so-tasty irony.
Is it just me, or is all this concern over “child molesters” and trafficking something that’s happened over the last several decades. I don’t recall all the hysteria back when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. Or has it always been more so in the USA?
As for “stopping men’s desire to buy sex”, please. Might was well stop gravity.Men sometimes want sex available, no strings attached, when they want it. They often want something their wives/girlfriends aren’t willing to participate in. Sex can be recreation, for men and women.
There are always going to be those of us willing to serve that demand. We’ve been persecuted, harassed, called every name in the book, run out of town. But we’re a tough lot. We’ve had to be.
So why all the wasted effort? Why all the money spent, the lives ruined. Just get over it, do what you can to make our lives safer (decriminalization.)
If buying sex doesn’t appeal to you, then don’t. (Talking to you too, Ashton.)
Unfortunately, the non-whore women who help sexually frustrated men also get called the same names and have the same lies said about them as the whores.
That’s because ultimately it’s about the sex, not the money. But because society now frowns on criminalizing adultery and “fornication”, the pay is a convenient excuse for legal persecution.
Ahem … hey Laura … where exactly would one find one of these non-whore women who help sexually frustrated men? 😛
Dear Krulac, I used personal ads. That’s also how I found the FEW men who didn’t lie to me, had manners and also wanted the same thing I did. Yes, personal ads are more work than hiring a whore. I’d be lying if I said they weren’t. But, sometimes the work pays off, like it did in my case. I wouldn’t give up on my goal and I met it. I have met other women like me and the 1st 1 I met was during my junior high school years. We became close friends for a lot of years (we never had sex with each other). I currently have a friend that’s also like me (although she’s less wild than me in 1 way, she can also have sex with no emotional attachment). We ARE out there (thank God!). I love using personal ads because you can just put it all out there up front. Unfortunately, there are some that lie including the men (which I learned many times, unfortunately, during my search). But, I’ll always defend the 1’s I found that were great and I saw regularly. I’m sick of hearing all the men or nearly all are ###***.
Dear Krulac, there’s other ways besides the personal ads to meet women like me and I’ll list them for you soon (I’m working over time on catching up on posts on here where I got asked things, etc.). Thanks for your patience.
It’s not just you; the hysteria over child sex abuse started to build in the social worker and police/prosecution communities in the early ’80s and became a full-fledged moral panic after the airing of a TV movie called Something About Amelia in 1984. Reports of incest jumped literally by a figure of 10x almost overnight, but because nobody wanted to recognize that the vast majority of child sex abuse was by relatives and acquaintances incest hysteria vanished within a year into the growing day care sex abuse panic which had started in 1982. The latter panic was almost certainly caused by anxiety rooted in guilt experienced by mothers entering the workforce in huge numbers and turning their children over to the care of strangers due to the breakdown of the extended family since the Second World War.
“Hysteria” is not an accurate word to describe truthful reports. “Something About Amelia” brought incest out in the open for the first time in American history, which is why there was a sudden 10x increase in incest reports; the vast majority of victims had kept silent previously because the subject was a huge taboo to discuss publicly.
I agree that shifting the blame to day care centers was a defense mechanism against recognizing that the family is the locus of most forms of child abuse, and an expression of the anxiety of the first generation of American mothers in which placing children in day care before kindergarten was common.
Ahh, ok, so that’s the story behind it.
Now admittedly, until my teen years, I grew up in probably one of the safer places to be, middle class northern UK. Safe was also fairly dull, even in the swinging sixties. The USA, when I got here, seemed much more dangerous, and exciting.
Still, it was the seventies, and I don’t recall a lot of paranoia over sex, underage or otherwise. We just learned that there were “creepy guys” you stayed well away from, and for those of us lucky enough to get some feminism, that our bodies were our own, and we didn’t always have to go along with what the guy wanted. (Even though there was social pressure to.)
So what caused the over-all sex scare? AIDS?
The U.S. has always had a weird obsession-repulsion complex with sex, but the current scare seems to be largely the result of AIDS coupled with a backlash against the sexual revolution, stoked and fueled by neofeminists and their fundamentalist Christian allies.
You may ask where I’m going with this, but please bear with me. I liked Ashton Kutcher’s character of Kelso on “That 70’s Show” sitcom more than his character on the “Two and a Half Men” sitcom. For, that matter, I liked the character of Charlie Sheen as Charlie Harper on the “Two and A Half Men” television show more than Ashton Kutcher’s character of Walden Schmidt on the same show thus far. I will refer to the character’s names rather than the actors below. The reason is that the characters Kelso and Charlie were more believeable as good seducers of women than the clueless character of Walden Even Jon Cryer’s character Allen Harper on “Two and a Half Men” knows more even though he is not as capable in action as the other three characters. Handsome men are cut much more slack than average looking men and even more than ugly men, but you still need to have a clue about women,know how to talk to them and know how to seduce them if you want sex from them without going to prostitutes. Being extremely handsome and clueless about women may get a man far in seducing women in life, but not if he is as clueless as the Walden character on “Two and aHalf Men”.Charlie and Kelso would be more desireable to women and be able to seduce more women into sex with less drama than Walden becuase they know women better. Even Charlie who has less money, is older and is not as good looking would be able to do so. Kelso would be able to do the same even though he has considerably less money. The only thing Walden would attract is golddiggers. Maybe life is imitating art and it seems the real life Ashton Kutcher is doing the same with Sara Leal. I still like both shows though.
Even the character Charlie Harper hires whores when his seducing abilities are low or when he wants drama free sex or the kind of sexual activities he wants This is art imitating life as Charlie Sheen has said,” I don’t hire hookers for sex, but I hire them to go away.” The character Charlie Harper who was good with knowing women and seducing them has attracted golddiggers, drama queens, lunatics and even decent women who have created drama even though the good emotional benefits from good women seem to have outweighed the drama. Even men in real life like Charlie are not immune from what Charlie experienced. Charlie handled women better than Allen and was overall less screwed over by them, but he still was played for a fool by them sometimes. Even the best of men with women can be played as a fool sometimes. Few if any men like drama. They may tolerate it as they understand that in order to get more and better benefits of a relationship they must tolerate drama. My opinion is that on average men hate drama more than women do. Men really hate it when they consider it unnecessary. Therefore, a man will at least get drama free sex and the kind of sexual activities agreed to for a financial price from a professional ethical whore. He may or may not get the kind of sexual activities from non-whore women, but he NEVER GETS DRAMA FREE SEX unless he goes to a professional ethical prostitute. A man is also less likely to get venereal diseases from prostitutes than from a female non-prostitute including his wife on average. Even for men who tell me that they know how to seduce women easily and pay very little financially by remaining single such as Charlie or Kelso would do can not convince me that they lessen the drama in their lives. I know Maggie McNeill and others will tell me that they can’t be paying less than going to a whore or at the very least they can’t be reducing their potential financial and legal liabilities just like Ashton Kutcher in real life.
I’m not here to argue either way, but to say this. You may or may not have paid less money to seduce women for sex as a single man. However, given the current legal and social climate, if she decided to put the “screws” on you, it would almost certainly cost you more. You certainly will pay more in terms of emotional negative drama than by going to a professional ethical whore.
“He may or may not get the kind of sexual activities from non-whore women, but he NEVER GETS DRAMA FREE SEX unless he goes to a professional ethical prostitute.”-your use of the word “never” leaves NO room for any exceptions to this. This is totally unfair and willfully denying that women like me exist at all (which at least a few people in this world would LOVE! They’d love it if there were no women like me.). It’s an EVIL LIE that non-whore women NEVER give drama free sex. I alone disprove it and the other women I’ve known like me disprove it also. I’m currently friends with another woman like me. It isn’t just women I’ve known in the past that disprove it. There’s also women I don’t personally know who disprove it. You could ask ANY of the men I had sex only friendships with and they’ll confirm it also. You’re welcome to ask Sailor Barsoom on here (he’s my fiance) also. He and I started out as “friends with benefits”. There’s a term I now love that he (Sailor B) introduced me to: “ethical slut”. I’m 1 of these. Whores don’t have a monopoly on sexual ethics and/or honesty either. The women like me don’t have a monopoly on these things either. An FYI, I’ve never had an STD. I’ve acknowledge on here before at least a few times there were a few times I didn’t use condoms with my friends. This was completely my fault. However, that hasn’t happened again and never will. Also, if I cared so little about STD’s, then why in the world did I buy ALL the condoms when I had sex only friends? Someone who didn’t care at all wouldn’t do that. It’s really sad to me these lies are said (like the statement with “never” in it above). This confirms to me once again that the women like me NEED defending. I’m already doing that and will keep that up.
AcknowledgeD-sorry, it’s early!
LOL@aplusk
“Real women don’t buy boys” is something Demi Moore is learning the hard way, now that she and her much younger husband Ashton Kutcher are reportedly divorcing and splitting a $290 million fortune of which I am guessing at least half came from her divorce settlement from her first husband Bruce Willis. Bruce bought Demi and Demi bought Ashton.
I think that’s an accurate assessment; I know it’s certainly the opinion of a lot of disgruntled sex workers, who have often called him her “boy toy”.
Ashton, this is the sort of thing men avoid by hiring harlots. I can’t afford them, but then again a po’ boy like me doesn’t attract many gold diggers. But you, sir, will attract gold diggers, and you can afford adult prostitutes who chose that career for reason sufficient to themselves.
Absolutely, do not hire child sex slaves, but you’re in luck: there aren’t many of those around.
Sailor,
Sage advice, sir, to the callow youth. Methinks, though, that he lacks the wit to profit by it.
“For of wit, not so, you never had an atom and of letters, you need but three to write you down; A – S – S.”
It’s almost like Rostand was thinking of Ashton when he wrote that.
Except the Vicomte had a great deal more courage than Asstoon; can you imagine him having a duel with anyone? He’d be hiding behind the theater seats and screaming “I’ll sue!”
You’re right. I did do the Vicomte a great disservice. Isn’t it odd that even the cads and lackeys of the time were still better people than groupie collectors of today?
I can’t understand why the people who rant and rave about the abuse and exploitation of kids (i.e. homeless kids doing survival sex work) don’t listen to the kids. The vast majority of whom appear to be saying quite clearly and articulately they want a place that is safer for them to live and from where they can access appropriate medical care. I suppose in large part it’s because few people want get involved with paying for places the kids believe are safe for them to run to and grow up in. The majority of official funding and energy and focus directed at “rescuing” neglected, homeless kids, is so unhelpful… particularly when the rescuing is cultural code for rehabilitation – forcing kids into juvenile and immigration detention centers, or programs founded on the very middle class trajectories that failed the kids so spectacularly in the first place. There seems to be an obsession with punishing kids, and punishing them further if they turn to survival sex work. If the USA is unable to create safe places for the kids, then at least provide the boys with better skills; how to better negotiate a scene with an adult, tie a safe slip knot, etc. I suppose there is the Internet as a source. But lots of kids don’t have a home or Internet connection. We need more creative minds out there, because at the moment to messages being transmitted to the boys are breathtakingly useless… http://www.real-stories-gallery.org / http://smashstreetboys.org Thanks for sharing any of your ideas with me. Rachel.
My mother used to work with runaway kids gathered from the streets by a small local NGO here in Mumbai. Their mission statement was that they took these kids into their shelter & off the streets, tracked down their parents, counselled the kids to go back home, & reunited them with their families. Local police also sent them any street kids that they knew did not live with their parents. They only took boys, any girls they found were sent to a different organization as they did not have the facilities nor did they want the responsibility of having young girls. Lots of things that can go wrong with girls.
They had one woman who was a runaway herself who was doing the actual reaching out to streetkids (coz she was intimately aware with the things that happen to kids alone on the streets) & another woman who was a widow with kids of her own who handled the day-to-day of their centre. These two were the “good samaritan from a disadvantaged background” public faces of the NGO & the main on-ground workers who spent most of their day with the kids. The person actually running the place was a man who visited once a week. My mother & a few others were roped in to conduct classes for the kids while the other two women tried to get them to open up & reveal information so that their parents could be traced. The NGO worked on government, foreign, & voluntary donations.
This was the official scheme of things. My mother worked there for a year or two. The final picture she left with was much less rosy.
They had funding going into millions of ruppees. Yet their two centres were in deplorable condition with the boys sleeping higgledy-piggledy on a couple of mattresses in the smaller centre in the city, & their other centre on the outskirts was a poorly electrified old building run like a boarding school with an eternal shortage of uniforms & communal toilets. They boys bathed in the open. My own mother & the other teachers were never paid the negligible amounts of money they were promised on time. Cheques were deposited months late. She still hasn’t received all the money they owe her, & she doesn’t even want it now that she knows what went on there.
The head man fooled around with the widow in front of the kids (small place) every time he visited. The other woman was undoubtedly prettier & younger but she had a sharp mouth & she was HIV positive. I don’t think I need to inform any of the readers here how that can happen to a girl growing up alone on the streets. There were always a few boys who had been sexually abused & she was a great support for them, her watchful presence was one good thing about the main centre in the city. I don’t know if the boys in the other centre were so lucky. Kids were shuffled between the two centres to show that they had “so many children” & “so little funds & facilities” every time a potential donor showed up. They maintained statistics showing how they reunite more & more children with their families every year. Ideally, if they are counselling the kids & sending them back, the numbers should be dropping. That fact should be obvious to any auditor with half a brain.
As for the children themselves, Mumbai being the urban centre it is, they were from almost all over the country, invariably poor, and uneducated. The people visiting as teachers were the closest thing they got to a school. Initially, my mother thought that all this could still be overlooked as long as they were still helping genuine cases. Then over time she found boys who were forcibly sent back to abusive homes, sent back to parents who had deliberately abandoned them, sent back to places they no longer called home. She found kids who had previously been “reunited” with much tears and had come back. Kids would leave their houses again because they hadn’t wanted to go back in the first place. There were also cases where the management had made a deal with the parents & given them money to send their kids back to Mumbai & take them back home for summer vacation after much public watershed fodder for the PR. They literally had an annual “Reunion Ceremony” where they would display kids & the parents would come up on stage bawling their eyes out, say their thanks, & take them away, only for the kid to be back after a couple months. A few boys even told my mother that they liked it better there than at home because at least there were people like her voluntarily coming in who seemed to genuinely care about them. They were aware that they were being used, but they preferred it to the hell that was their house & village.
The one particular case that finally made her quit was a 16-17 y/o who asked her what was to become of him when he turned 18. The NGO couldn’t officially take him again, his parents wouldn’t be able to use him as a money-pony again, nobody cared for him back home, & whatever little he had learned from the visiting teachers was of no use because he didn’t have an official school certificate or degree. In the long run, he was worse off than he would have been living rough on the streets picking up skills that could give him gainful employment without a degree.
And yet, just a couple months ago, the man who runs this NGO was awarded in a ceremony (awards-for-sale ceremony really, but it still carries weight) for “Contribution to the Community” at the hands of the Mayor. The NGO still functions, there are “surprize inspections” with a 48 hour notice, the police & the head go to dinner together, he goes to dinner with the kids’ parents, & everyone is well-fed except the children. The “Rescue & Rehabilitation” sectors are not just a farce, they are sickening industries that cater to people who need to launder money, gain tax benefits through donations, & rich airheads who desperately want to feel good about themselves by “helping make a difference” without any effort on their own part.