View Full Version : Excellent article regarding sex slavery
I am pretty sure there are some other folks on this forum that are interested in the subject of sex slavery. My friends and family always think I am a little crazy when I talk about it. But, I am convinced that sex slavery is much, much more prominent in our own country than we would like to believe. I am also convinced that there are a number of missings persons from our country that are living in other countries or even still in the United States as sex slaves. Obviously, these groups are very tight lipped.
I am NOT a conspiracy theorist! Most of the time, these groups are heavily funded and patronized by very wealthy and powerful people. Some folks are of the mindset that nothing can stay a secret for long. I am also of that mindset. But, then how would you or I explain the fact that they find these houses of sex slavery...usually by accident!
Anyway, here is an article from the NY Times. I encourage folks to write to the journalist to thank him/her for the coverage. Perhaps we can begin opening people's eyes to this industry. It happens here in the U.S., not just Mexico, Thailand, and Eastern Europe.
The Girls Next Door (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html)
Yes, it is an industry that is present here in the US, often in more rural areas and smaller cities.
When economic circumstances force some former Soviet bloc nations to have outdoor marketplaces where families can offer children for sale that they can no longer support, you know that females are going to be ' a commodity item ' even in places where The Russian Mafia is not in control.
Sure there is some 'luring' with promises of jobs as nanny or elder care, but much of this is clearly known as that sex trade. Sometimes the women think they will be prostitutes rather than sex slaves who receive mainly vodka, very few meals and no money. In some European areas, the houses of prostitution keep a town's taxes low and 'escapees' are brought back by the townspeople.
In the USA, its not much different than the drug trade. You can double your money in a week in Compton, but you will be up against computerized police forces with drug and gang units and all your cumstomers will be armed. You can go to a place like Little Rock, Ark and most of your customers won't be armed, the cops are not well organized and you can double your money in three days.
Its the same thing with the sex trade. Tehy are moving into the smaller cities and the rural areas; just as immigrants from Vietnam who are not in the sex trade are now moving into rural rather than urban areas.
Alot of the women on the streets are not runaways and prostitutes so as to get money for drugs, alot of them are indeed sex slaves. They get no money, they just get kept alive and their families are allowed to live too.
01-26-2004, 11:27 AM
For more about this go to www.JohnnyGosch.com and read the link to The Gunderson Report. Shock warning. Don't shoot the messenger.
01-26-2004, 11:40 AM
This is an very interesting topic and I also feel that many missing adults and children are taken for this very purpose.
I do not know what is scarier, the fact that sex slavery is an organized crime 'run' by people as a business... or the self serving sadists that take people at random and keep them in basement dungeons for years...
Either way it's horrifying and I also believe it is far more widespread & common than we could grasp.
Don't get carried away with this. Slavery has been going on for centuries. Even the code of Hamurabi embraced slavery though it prohibited the charging of interest in even a nominal amount on the lending of money.
The Irish were slave owners, the Scandinavians were slave owners. Slavery even made its way to Spain, Southern France and Southern Germany. And if you read the transcripts of trials in New England you wil find that an Indentured Servant really spent seven years as a slave, not a servant. Reports of beatings administered to Indentured Servants in New England make some slave planatations pale by comparison. In Colonial America a home owner who fondled a female Indentured Servant committed neither a crime nor a socially improper act. It was not in any way considered wrong. Nor was it wrong to lock servants in their quarters at night.
In Europe, if you look at the Begging License registers in the cities in Spain you will find that most were issued to women who begged because their husbands had been taken as slaves while seeking their fortune in the spice trade.
African slavery? No Europeans or Americans ever took slaves in Africa, they only purchased them from the tribes who were mainly 'slave ranchers' and had been slave ranchers for generations. Many of the slaves that were not purchased would have been eaten. And even though there was much cruelty on a slave ship, if a slave mutinied, he would be beheaded, but if he merely died, he would be dumped overboard whole out of respect for his beliefs that he could thus return home, but could not do so if beheaded.
And don't ever forget, our mitochondrial dna follows the patterns of the female slave trade! And like it or not, we are the progeny of those men who won battles by killing the males and enslaving the females.
So don't think that when a sex-slave escapes from a brothel but is captured and returned by local townspeople who don't like paing high taxes, that this is something new.
I am well aware that this is nothing new. But I don't think most of the American people realize that it is still going on. Even the legislation that George Bush signed into effect over the past few years didn't get much press. There is an organization http://www.freetheslaves.net that has a great website regarding many forms of slavery still alive today.
Alot of fundamentalist Christian Sunday School kids are solicited for 'dimes to free a slave'. All it ever does is drive the price up and make the slave traders take the money and use it to go get more.
Dateline Episode regarding Sex Slavery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4038249/)
This is an article and clip of a Dateline episode on sex slavery in Cambodia. It is just awful.
02-19-2004, 04:31 PM
Oh Toth, I've missed you, where have you been my controversial friend?
Regarding the above links, I go back to my niavity. I cannot fathom that this goes on - on a big scale. MY GOOD GOD. Poor Johnny. I cannot imagine the suffering. I remember reading a book called the Perfect Victim. A lady was held hostage for 7 years as a sex slave. I think they've portrayed her on American Justice or something. This is horrible. HOW COME Johnny's mother doesn't get more news? Where's John Walsh on this issue?
02-19-2004, 04:45 PM
I don't know enough about modern slavery to comment really, but I too imagine many of the children and women are taken for this purpose. What a horrible thought.
02-19-2004, 06:52 PM
The Johnny Gosch Story was apalling.
From the excerpt of the book:
"Some called to criticize me for not crying on television." Gotta love people. If you don't react the way THEY think you should, you must not love your kid. :razz:
02-19-2004, 07:01 PM
I just read Johnny's story. Don't hate me but I would hope that my child was quickly killed rather than that horror.
What did LaVey's son have to do with it, anyway?
How did they know it was satanic? Or was it just done in a scary satinic-like way as to scare they children?
I am totally out of my league when people start talking satanic motivated or involved crimes. I simply don't know enough about it. Satanic and sex slavery? My mind is blown.
02-19-2004, 09:15 PM
I found a link to a radio show where Johnny's mom talks in depth, over 2 hours about the grave lengths people have gone to about her son. If you have time, there are 4 radio archives. Just click "find" Noreen Gosch
02-20-2004, 12:30 AM
OK, I'm pissed. I just read the Gunderson Report on the Johnny Gosch page. In it, one of the grirs testified to having had sex with COP Wadman, so they charged her with perjury.
"Alisha Owen was convicted of first offense perjury in 1991 and was sentenced on August 8, 1991, to nine to 27 years in prison"
THE FREAKING RAPISTS DON'T GET THAT MUCH TIME!!!!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
02-20-2004, 12:31 PM
She had a baby by him. What the hell!
02-20-2004, 12:40 PM
Did I misunderstand that or did she have a baby by him??!!
02-20-2004, 12:59 PM
Did I misunderstand that or did she have a baby by him??!!
Here's one of the articles where it states he impregnated her:
" later learned that he was very good friends with Robert Wadman, the police chief from Omaha who was in office at the time that the Franklin affair was going on. Wadman was disgraced, having gotten a young girl, Alicia Owen, pregnant."
there's a couple of other links in reference to this. SO HOW THE HELL did she go to jail? OMG This is horrible.
"Wadman was accused of impregnating a teenage juvenile delinquent female, named Alicia Owens. He refused to submit biological material for analysis and was never convicted of the crime of statutory rape. Observers noted that Owens' child bore a strong resemblance to Wadman. "
"In September, 1997, television show "Inside Edition" reported that Johnny Gosch was still alive. Johnny Gosch is a highly publicized 1982 kidnap victim from West De Moines, Iowa, who has also been named as a victim in the Franklin child abuse matters, as described below.
One week after this show was aired, Nebraska authorities picked up Alicia Owen, and without explanation, said she must serve out the remaining lengthy sentence in prison. In spite of this, Alisha refused to recant. Alisha is still incarcerated. Alisha’s parents are raising Alisha’s daughter, Amanda Jayne, who according to Alisha was sired by Omaha Chief of Police, Robert Wadman. Alisha was 15 years old when she had Amanda."
Oh Toth, I've missed you, where have you been my controversial friend?Sick. Very, very sick. And although I have mainly acquaintances from the Eight Asterisk Forum to thank for all those boxes of food and tea when I was housebound, I do thank the one from this forum who sent real soup rather than cybersoup!
As to the word 'controversial', I don't think my views on this or any other topic are controversial.
Sex slavery is not new. As I posted, we are all the progeny of the men who won battles and raped the women in the cities they captured. All the mitochondrial dna evolution patterns jive with the caravan trails of trade in female slaves. We may think of ourselves as more civilized now, but that does not change history.
No white man ever took slaves in Africa, he purchased them from black slave-taking tribes. Most of those tribes were really "slave ranchers" who for generations had allowed smaller tribes to prosper only to the point that the village was "ready for market". Many slaves owed their lives to the ship captains as they would have been eaten if not purchased, since their black captors tended to dispose of unsaleable merchandise in what might be termed "interesting" ways that usually involved either cannibalism or cliffs overlooking the ocean.
Sex slavery is openly practiced in Europe as I indicated by these small towns that pay no taxes but whose citizens return runaway 'prostitutes' to the brothel because the brothel pays all the town's taxes.
There is nothing controversial in any of this. It is the truth. Some do not like hearing the truth, but that does not make it controversial.
Slavery has been an instiution for centuries. I've mentioned the Code of Hammurabi and the slave caravans in Asia. Perhaps you can discern the root word for Slavic?
Slavery has a long history in this country and I don't just mean southern plantations. New England "indentured servants" endured very bad lives as even court records attest. Female indentured servants could be fondled without fear, for it was neither a crime nor an act thought to be socially unacceptable. Servants could be and often would be locked up at night.
Slavery? Sex-slavery? Aint nothing new about it at all.
Check the begging licenses issued in cities in the Mediterranean, particularly in Spain. Check the records that showed priests often negotiated to ransom Europeans who were kept as slaves, but also often simply kept the money and on occasion re-sold freed slaves to other masters.
03-01-2004, 05:43 PM
Sorry to hear you are/were very sick.
It was my opinion that some of your statements are controversial. That does not mean I didn't think they(statements) are not the truth. Just the "mass" does not generally think along the same lines as you and I applaud that. I appreciate those who can truly make me think & rethink my own positions and you've accomplished that with me. Going along with the masses does not mean one has thought their opinions through. Take care and hope to see you around more.
03-01-2004, 06:04 PM
Hope you are feeling better.
Controvery: 1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views
Since people oppose your views many time, your views would be controversial. Since people sometimes oppose how you express your views, you would be controversial. If you say I'm wrong right now, that would be controversial.
This thread was originally about how amazing it is that we still have sex slavery after all this time if we are supposedly civilized, not whether we've had it a long time.
In addition, the Portugese kidnapped many Africans for slavery, and I am pretty sure the "white" people (whatever that means) did as well. Not to say the Africans didn't sell their own, but that came a little later.
What does "white" mean, anyway? Is that a nationality or a race or a skin color or what? Cause if by "white", you mean European, yes, they did kidnap and sell into slavery many Africans. Want a link?
P.S. I disagree with your statement that "No white man ever took slaves in Africa", based on information I have read and researched, so that makes it controversial.
My understanding is that slaves were generally purchased in Africa for the simple reason that in order to make a voyage profitable one had to obtain quite a few slaves and for any American or European to venture into the interior and actually raid a village a long and dangerous expedition would have to be undertaken into regions that were not freindly to outsiders even if they were not slavers. We called Africa the 'Dark Continent' for a reason, so little was known of anything beyond the coastal regions.
Modern day 'servants' in Saudia Arabia are really slaves and occasionally we read of Arabs who visit the US and bring along their servants but forget that they can not be beaten or locked up in this country.
I believe that Israeli law to this day makes the purchase of female slaves legal.
03-01-2004, 07:58 PM
My understanding is that slaves were generally purchased in Africa for the simple reason that in order to make a voyage profitable one had to obtain quite a few slaves and for any American or European to venture into the interior and actually raid a village a long and dangerous expedition would have to be undertaken into regions that were not freindly to outsiders even if they were not slavers. Here is some information:
"In 1441 ten Africans were kidnapped from the Guinea coast and taken to Portugal as gifts to Prince Henry the Navigator. In subsequent expeditions to the West African coast, inhabitants were taken and shipped to Portugal to be sold as servants and objects of curiosity to households. In the Portuguese port of Lagos, where the first African slaves landed in 1442, the old slave market now serves as an art gallery."
"Black slaves were captured or bought by Arabs and exported across the Saharan desert to the Mediterranean and Near East."
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.