Once you’ve been arrested for prostitution…that is a stigma that will stick to you for the rest of your life. – Norma Jean Almodovar
I sometimes wonder how my life would’ve been different had I had the sense to lie:
What lies do people tell if they work in the sex industry? For starters, it depends on exactly what they do…An escort named Jane (I’ve changed the names of everyone in this story) tells everyone she’s a real estate agent. It fits all the data, and also explains why her income is variable…Agency escorts have a different set of challenges, mostly surrounding the “call on” system. When an escort calls on at an agency, it means that they are dressed and ready to work; if they get a booking, they pledge to arrive to the call within an agreed-upon amount of time…Strippers have a different set of challenges…Jill works in a dominatrix parlor, and her hours are ten to six, Monday through Friday. Equipment is stored at the Midtown studio…Her babysitter thinks she works in HR…
A man involved with helping sex trafficking victims was arrested…during an undercover prostitution sting…Nathaniel Schlueter was arrested by an undercover officer…[whom he] offered $30 in exchange for sexual favors….Schlueter served on the board of directors for The Refuge Ranch, which helps teenage women who have rescued from sex trafficking…
Why do people still listen to “nutritionists”?
Bacon, sausage and other processed meats are now ranked alongside cigarettes and asbestos as known carcinogens, the World Health Organization announced…a…scientific panel examined more than 800 epidemiological studies…to…[classify] “consumption of processed meat as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer”…Red meat carries a slightly lower risk…but is still “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Aside from the “strong mechanistic evidence” related to colorectal cancer, the “consumption of red meat was also positively associated with pancreatic and with prostate cancer. As a main line of evidence, the group cites one study from 2011…
For the source of that 2011 study, click on the subtitle.
A “cult”. Because mentioning their sex practices wasn’t quite lurid enough.
Three members of a reported “master-slave” sex cult were convicted…of murdering [Brittany Killgore]…Marine Staff Sgt. Louis Perez, 49, Dorothy Grace Maraglino, 40, and Jessica Lynn Lopez, 28, were convicted of torturing and murdering…Killgore “for their own sadistic pleasure,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Patrick Espinoza [claimed]…Killgore was not a part of the cult, which enjoyed bondage, whipping, spanking, cutting, sadism and masochism…Without knowing the three had a “sex dungeon” in their rented home, Killgore had agreed to go on a dinner cruise with Perez in exchange for his helping her move…
That the Nevada brothel segment of the sex industry is in decline is not news:
…The Love Ranch epitomizes the sorry state of the industry….there are currently just 17 brothels employing around 300 prostitutes in the state. That’s down from 30 brothels in 2009…“These brothels are really a relic of the past,” a state senator told the LA Times. “The urban areas have an appetite to abolish them. And given the state’s rapid urbanization, there’s really little popular support left for these businesses”…
That senator is full of shit; 66% of Nevada voters believe they should be legal everywhere in the state. But just in case you think this is really a serious economic issue, consider that those 300 licensed prostitutes represent less than 1% of Nevada’s estimated whore population.
Why ride a bike or stand around on lawns or off-ramps when you can just sit?
The CNN Freedom Project has been shining a spotlight on the horrors of modern slavery, but now we need your help. We want you to join our #FlyToFreedom campaign to help fight slavery. The Freedom Project’s symbol is a paper plane…so we’re asking you to:
1) Make a paper plane.
2) Write a pledge on the plane — something you’re going to do to help fight modern slavery.
3) Show us your plane and pledge on social media using the hashtag #FlyToFreedom.
4) Nominate two friends to do the same by tagging them in your social media post.
O, Canada! (All Traffick, All the Time)
Women continue to have bills despite cops’ intimidation attempt:
Twelve Nova Scotia sex-trade workers were [targeted by] a national RCMP [intimidation campaign]…Operation Northern Spotlight [tricked]…11 women and one man in Nova Scotia…[a pig mouthpiece had the audacity to describe the intimidation attempt as] “a fostering and nurturing conversation”…[but fortunately] “they chose to continue their [work]”…
An Idaho college’s former financial aid director has been sentenced to 107 days in jail for charges related to offering students financial aid in exchange for sex…Joseph Bekken…[also got] three years of probation and a $10,000 fine…Bekken advertised on Craigslist for several semesters while working for Northern Idaho College, saying he would provide scholarship money in exchange for sex…
Though some people refuse to accept this, every sex worker knows it:
…the majority of National Blacklist posts address other issues entirely—things like time-wasters, stalkers and thieves. But it’s remarkable that sex workers using a resource describing itself as the “world’s largest bad client database and escort safety tool” seem more concerned about warning each other about police officers than the dangers from which law enforcement is ostensibly meant to protect them…A 2002 study in Chicago found that 24 percent of street-based female sex workers who said they were raped identified a police officer as the perpetrator, and one-fifth of other forms of sexual violence against these women were attributed to police. A study by the Sex Worker’s Project of the Urban Justice Center found that 16 percent of indoor sex workers surveyed reported having been “involved in sexual situations with the police,” and 14 percent reported experiencing police violence…
How transparent does this have to be before people see it?
Kids are the heroes in a new mobile game [from] Naked Sky Entertainment…and their virtual adventures will provide funds to help children around the world escape from the horrors of human trafficking. Love146…will receive 14.6 percent of the profits that come out of the new mobile game “Scrap Force”…
The Course of a Disease (#449)
Cop says it’s “wrong” that he isn’t allowed to arrest people who aren’t doing anything illegal:
…Sgt Neil Radford, the head of Nottingham’s prostitution task force, said: “On the street, the law allows you to deal with people who are purchasing sex. But there is no equivalent legislation for off-street work. If somebody goes into a brothel to purchase sex…he isn’t committing any offence at all. That’s wrong and we have to be able to do something about it”…
An Egyptian actress…has ignited a nationwide controversy for suggesting that Egyptian men would benefit from watching more pornography. In fact, she’s facing jail time. Entissar…told a TV audience…that “These films are useful for men, especially those who have no pre-marriage sex experience.” But beyond what men might be able to learn about sex from such films, Entissar thinks that, “Everyone should be free in watching porn films if they want”…”This is a call for debauchery and depravity,” according to one unhappy cleric quoted in the press…A group called “Who Loves Egypt?” was unhappy enough…to take her court for “inciting debauchery.” The charge carries a one-year prison term…
…Plenty of well-meaning people back Amnesty International’s proposal for full decriminalization of the sex trade…Yet in practice, approaches similar to Amnesty’s have ended up simply empowering pimps. And while under these proposals human trafficking would remain illegal, the police would no longer have a reason to raid brothels…
For comparison: “Plenty of well-meaning people back the 21st amendment, yet in practice similar approaches have ended up simply empowering bootleggers. And while under these proposals poisoned liquor would remain illegal, the police would no longer have a reason to raid speakeasies…”
The evidence that processed meat increases cancer risk is solid and goes well beyond any single study. It includes animal RCTs, prospective cohort studies and epidemiological studies (the article refers to over 800 of the latter). That red meat in general causes cancer is not as unequivocal but is still strong.
Where the media is being misleading is in equating the danger of processed meat consumption with smoking. The WHO places the risk in group 1 – alongside tobacco, asbestos and HPV – not because it’s as dangerous as those carcinogens but because the evidence it is a carcinogen is just as strong. (Of course that’s neither here nor there to the many libertarian shills who still claim the evidence of a link between smoking and lung cancer is just a conspiracy against the tobacco industry).
If in asking rhetorically ‘Why do people still listen to “nutritionists”?’ you’re referring to ‘Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’ and her pathetic attempt to spin away decades of high quality research then I’m in complete agreement with you.
I have no respect for nutritionists, no matter who’s paying their salaries.
Also remember that alcohol, sunlight, and simply being alive causes cancer. All three cannot practically be avoided. For example, fruit juice has up to 2% alcohol, as I learned in driving school. Avoiding the sun completely will make you very sick.
The issue here is that these people omitted the risk (very, very small) in order to get publicity.
Wrong on two counts.
The increased cancer risk of eating processed meat is significant, if not as significant as smoking (Smoking accounts for 19% of all cancers. Processed and red meat for 3% of all cancers). Also there are no valid health reasons for eating it as it contains fewer nutrients than its unprocessed counterparts. While it may have been hard to avoid in the days before rapid transport and refrigeration it’s very easy to avoid now. Red meat is a different issue because the risk is lower, as is the capacity of many people to find substitute dietary sources of iron and B12.
And the WHO did publish the figures for increased risk. It’s just that the media largely decided to ignore that bit in favour of trying to equate sausages with cigarettes.
People eat bacon because it’s tasty. They smoke dope because it’s pleasurable. And they see prostitutes (and have sex in general) because it’s fun. All three carry certain risks. How much hand-holding do adults need?
No-one is suggesting banning sausages Paul. This is about letting people know the risks so they can make informed decisions.
Or do you think it should be left entirely up to the people who flog this stuff?
Ha! I’ll bet there’s people attempting to do *exactly* that! PETA lunatics and all the rest of them. Well, I for one will continue to eat tasty animals, and refuse to bow down to our lentil-and-garilc breathed would-be overlords! And if those tasty animals are months old and preserved in salt and nitrites: so much the better!
You’re letting your paranoia get the better of you Paul.
This research has nothing to do with PETA and no-one is trying to stop you from eating lousy quality bacon. In fact, knowing its health effects I for one would wholeheartedly encourage you to tuck in.
Just noticed that my reply above reads “I for one will continue to eat tasty animals and refuse!” if you miss the comma. Ahh, punctuation! The difference between “Hi helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse.” and something else.
Oh! It gets better! Apparently its all an Obama/Muslim conspiracy:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/whoa-deems-bacon-to-be-carcinogenic-leads-point-to-obama-muslim-conspiracy-3234194.html
I hope that this is satire, or perhaps whimsy, but bitter experience suggests that it isn’t.
Pork is for sissies anyway.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–b2Q7ZhVD–/18lsvh1ux2zayjpg.jpg
I’ve been informed on this topic for decades. We don’t need the nannies anymore. You sound like the people who make women watch an ultrasound before having an abortion.
Like you and Dr Magnanti, I too have been aware of the link between cancer and processed meat for many years. What’s changed is that the WHO has finally accumulated enough evidence to promote the risk level from “probably causes cancer in humans” to “does cause cancer in humans.
Why is it important for people like the WHO to make such announcements?
Well, one reason is because there’s a lot of corporate shills like Steven Milloy out there constantly pushing Big Lies that everything sold by their sponsors is completely safe. Were it not for the WHO and other public health authorities publishing corrections to such disinformation many people would probably come to believe them and make the same sort of misinformed decisions about their health that ultimately killed Ayn Rand.
Oh, we are making up numbers? I can do that too: Apparently, the risk of dying from cancer is around 25% of the total deaths. 3% of 25% is 0.75%. I classify that as “very, very low”, given that everybody dies eventually.
Also the “they” which omitted the risk is the press. The WHO did support that misstatement by making it very, very easy though.
By your reckoning the risk of any one cause of death is ‘very, very low’ then.
To put it into perspective, there are estimated to be 8,800 cancer deaths caused by red and processed meat in the UK per year. By comparison the total UK deaths from road accidents in 2013 was 1,719.
In other words red and processed meat kills UK residents at over five times the rate of road accidents.
BTW, the total yearly mortality rate in the UK is about half a million, so red and processed meat induced cancers account for about 1.75% of annual deaths – over twice your estimate.
Yes Celos, we all die. For a vast number of different reasons. So the risk of dying from any one thing is ‘very, very low’ in absolute terms. However the risk of dying of cancer induced by red or processed meat is relatively quite high, even though it’s less than one seventh the risk of dying from smoking induced cancer.
If you want to know where you went wrong, you equated the rate of cancers caused with the rate of cancer deaths.
Bowel cancer – the main one induced by these meats – has a considerably higher death rate than average for cancers.
You really want to accuse me of oversimplifying things after what you posted? But fine, be afraid without good reason.
Why should I be afraid of your statistical illiteracy?
Hehehehe, you wish. I just know a bit more than you about statistics and _I_ can see that your original numbers are entirely meaningless. What you actually would need to know is how much life expectancy is decreased by the fraction of these cancers that is caused by red meat and processed meat.
I think you’ve already demonstrated your level of statistical competence Celos.
Do you think an average maths undergraduate would have confounded cancer incidence with cancer mortality in such a calculation?
But I guess if you can magically evaluate scientific research “at a glance” as you’ve assured us, such mundanities as statistical analysis and critical thinking skills must be superfluous.
Obviously the relevance of the figures depends on who is using them and for what.
For a patient with a family history of colorectal cancer or her doctor it matters little whether the tumour is more likely to strike when she’s 44 or 94 if she wants to reduce her chances of dying in a rather unpleasant way. That’s even more the case for public officials who want to educate the public in a manner that may reduce the impact of colorectal cancer on the health system. I don’t imagine it’s any cheaper to treat a 90 year old than a 40 year old.
Colorectal cancers are the second biggest cause of cancer mortality (after lung cancer) and those rates are falling for those over 50 but rising for those under 50. Survivors often suffer significant impacts on their quality of life (colostomy bag, anyone?). Red and processed meat are implicated in 60-70% of cases.
So Celos, don’t you think maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to get information out that may help people significantly reduce their risk, even though it may upset the meat industry and give the media another chance to distort cancer stories in the manner it invariably does?
One thing I have to hand you Celos. Although your interpretation of Dunning’s and Kruger’s research lacks critical analysis and is typical of the media hype which fails to take regression to mean into account, your own use of statistics lends weight to your spin on the D-K effect.
The press don’t need to manipulate figures to get publicity Celos. They are publicity.
BTW, Junkscience.com – which you link to in your original piece – is run by precisely the kind of libertarian shill for big corporations I referred to in my previous comment.
Considering his own considerable funding from the businesses Milloy shills for and his multiple links to right wing ‘free market’ think tanks it’s kind of ironic that he dismisses entire fields of research on the basis of one or two researchers linked to animal rights groups.
Either Milloy is not across the principles of data analysis at all or he deliberately misrepresents the way meta-analyses work in his latest nonsensical pretense at debunking a small portion of the studies cited by the WHO. Still, with a site name like “Junkscience” you can’t accuse him of false labeling.
Re: Paint by numbers
Because you won’t be risking getting your head cracked open while still having no demonstrable effect on whatever it is you wish would stop?
Darn, did I oversleep again? I could of sworn it was Diary Tuesday!
Re: A Moral Cancer
The problem with these people is that even though there may be some small increase in the chance of cancer, they make it so that you can’t eat anything without feeling like you’re going to kill yourself with unhealthy food. After hearing this report it gave me a craving for a nice bacon cheeseburger!
It is; I switched Tuesday & Wednesday this week to space them out better in anticipation of the coming weekend. They’ll be switched again next week before returning to normal.
RE: Image Enhancement. Another thing the article states is that the demand for sex workers in general is declining. I guess he’s never looked at Backpage.com.
RE: A Moral Cancer. OK, what are we supposed to eat? Processed meat is out. Chicken is bad because…uh…because the birdbrains are raised in mills or something. Fish has too much mercury or something. Oh….I know what will make everyone happy…Soylent Green!!!
Seriously…everything, and I mean EVERYTHING causes cancer…except maybe good bourbon. But that’ll get you through your liver.
None of us is getting out of here alive. Enjoy anything in moderation and try to enjoy the heck out of life people…
Alcohol causes liver cancer, like most other organic solvents.
Like I said…it’ll get you though your liver. 🙂
And people die of DHMO inhalation every year.
Hey, you should _smoke_ that stuff, not inhale it directly!
Thank God for technology! There are vaping machines now that let you do exactly that.
That PBS link on processed meat is poorly written and typical of the misreporting of what happened with regards to the WHO. Basically, the ‘ranking’ system simply means that it is a known, proven carcinogen. It makes no comment on *how* carcinogenic something is – it is simply a comment on how good the epidemiological and aetiological evidence are.
In this case the evidence for a link to human cancers is very good indeed. So good, I am surprised it was not a class 1 carcinogen already.
Saying something “ranks alongside” smoking or asbestos gives a casual reader the impression it is as dangerous as smoking, but that’s not the case. A far smaller percentage of people who eat processed meat regularly will get cancer from it compared to the percentage who get cancer that smoke regularly. The ranking system is independent of risk.
If it had been better reported, the news should not have alarmed people any more than knowing that sun exposure, hormone therapy of any kind including the Pill, wild garlic, alcohol, and salted fish also definitely cause cancer, in sufficient doses. If you didn’t already know processed meat can, now you know, and are free to make your choices and go about life as normal. That’s what I’ll be doing.
I used to work in cancer epidemiology, and had a particular interest in colorectal cancers for a while, so am very familiar with the body of literature, but don’t take my work for it, it’s all over PubMed.
Well, the general public cannot distinguish between “can cause” and “is likely to cause”. People are generally just not rational enough for it. Very small risks, such as being killed by a terrorist, get massively over-estimated, and real risks, like getting killed by smoking, not enough exercise or being run over by a car, are not perceived as relevant.
Hence anybody reporting really small risks but with large damage when it happens, is sure to get a lot of attention. Bruce Schneier (well-known IT security expert) calls these things “movie plot threats”, because they make good entertainment but are basically irrelevant to daily life. It is how the press works: Being able to create fear makes good business. Politics is mostly working in that principle as well today.
Come to think of it, do you know whether fear causes cancer by things like stress, adrenalin and other effects?
It would be the hight or irony if reports like this cause more cancer-deaths than what they try to warn of….
I’m sure it does, Celos. I’ve read and known too many people who have experienced loss of a loved one, then got some kind of fatal cancer and died soon thereafter; often in about 12 months . I’m sure the stress and “broken heartedness” lowered the bodies defenses somehow…and death was the result. I tend to think of these people as dying from broken hearts, and no matter the mechanism, I believe it to be true.
But then I always have been an incurable romantic.
Grief tends to cause stomach cancer in particular. Not sure where I got that titbit from. It’s how my dad died, but I am under the impression that there’s a more general correlation than just my anecdote.
Naked Truth:
Well, religious fanatical fuck-ups of all kinds do not like people that say true things. It messes with their ability to create false panics and generally keep people miserable so that they can appear as saviors. For the same reason, the only “fun” people are allowed in these fundamentally evil environments is prayer. Everything else has to be dreary and unappealing.
Hey…I’m one of those religious fanatical f’ups you describe. And as I’ve said, enjoy life in moderation. And, if anyone thinks true prayer is fun…well, to borrow a line from a Rush song (and I’m pretty sure they borrowed it too):
“You can surrender without a prayer,
But never really pray, pray without surrender…”
Although to be honest I’m not sure what the food police have to do with religion and praying. 🙂
Well, first, his was a comment on the “Naked Truth” part of the posting by Maggie, so no connection to “food police”. And second, “fanatical fuck-ups” was a sub-group specification of “religious”, so I doubt you qualify.
I have Milloy to thank for why I no longer support environmentalism. (It has basically devolved into a religion.) Furthermore, how come I’m the only one who has heard about the EPA’s contamination of the Animas River?
I heard about it… who have you been talking to?
The Animas River thing was all over the media. Anyone who pays attention knows about it.
Anyone who pays attention to Milloy knows a whole load of idiotic bollocks though.
Yes, we do, and the idiotic bollocks and junk science come from the people he targets, not from him. It’s the bureaucrats who get to force us all to pay their salaries who are not to be trusted on matters of environmental or food safety. They don’t care what their ideas cost human beings as long as they destroy our freedom to choose things for ourselves.
Just on the off chance you might know how meta-analysis works, jd, check out his recent post and tell me he has a clue what he’s talking about.
No. Scratch that. I think he does know what he deliberately lies about.
Milloy is just a hired gun for corporate propagandists jd. At least he’s paid to be stupid. What’s your excuse?
You are lying.
Nope. But I did mess up the link.
Try this.
http://junkscience.com/2015/10/challenge-not-a-single-epidemiological-study-credibly-links-meat-eating-with-cancer/
Oh yeah. It might help if you know the studies he’s talking about. He’s not very good with references.
https://neurodrooling.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/processed-meat-and-colorectal-cancer.png
“If somebody goes into a brothel to purchase sex…he isn’t committing any offence at all. That’s wrong and we have to be able to do something about it”…”
No problem. You live in a democracy, right? Write your congressman, have the law changed. It’s that easy!