Tag Archive for: boys

Debunking Child Trafficking Myths in the USA & Facing the Truth

Child trafficking is a heinous violation of human rights, with many misconceptions obscuring the real issues. Let’s unpack and demystify these myths, offering a transparent lens into the truth about child trafficking in the USA.

What is Child Trafficking?

The sale and exploitation of children, often for the purposes of forced labor or sexual exploitation. It involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of minors through force, deception, or coercion. Tragically, child trafficking treats children as commodities, prioritizing profit over their well-being and fundamental rights. This heinous crime occurs globally, transcending borders and socio-economic barriers, and demands urgent attention and collective action to safeguard the vulnerable youth. Read more.

Recognizing the Signs of Child Trafficking:

  • Children traveling alone or with non-relative adults.
  • Children appearing dominated by an accompanying adult.
  • Unexplained school absences or frequent transfers.
  • History of runaways or homelessness.
  • Child labor with long hours or low pay.
  • Expensive possessions or inappropriate clothing.
  • Overcrowding or unsafe environments.
  • Tattoos or branding hinting at commercial sex trafficking.
  • Performance of sexual acts or prostitution.

Read more.

Dispelling Myths:

Myth 1: Child trafficking mostly happens in developing countries.

Reality: The USA is the main source and destination for child trafficking, with an estimated annual income of $50 billion from child sex trafficking.

Myth 2: Child trafficking mostly involves kidnapping.

Reality: Trafficking methods vary, and most trafficking isn’t through abduction. Kidnapping is one of many tactics, but statistically, it’s the minority of the instances of child trafficking. Over 90% of the time, children are trafficked by family members and/or friends.

Myth 3: Trafficking victims come from low-income backgrounds.

Reality: While socio-economic vulnerabilities can play a role, children from all economic, racial, and social backgrounds can become victims of trafficking. It’s not restricted by socio-economic status, region, or neighborhood type. Traffickers often exploit areas where they believe they won’t be suspected or caught.

Myth 4: If they wanted to leave, they could.

Reality: Many assume that victims of trafficking can easily leave their situations if they wanted. However, traffickers often use manipulation, threats, violence, and other coercive tactics to control and keep their victims from seeking help.

Myth 5: Trafficking involves moving across borders.

Reality: Trafficking doesn’t always involve the transportation of victims across state or national borders. It can occur within the same state, city, or community.

Myth 6: Trafficking children can be easily identified.

Reality: The truth is, most victims are scripted and show subtle signs that may not be obvious to most. Many may overlook a child who is attending their school or church, unwitting to the harsh reality that child may be facing in their home life.

Myth 7: Law enforcement can easily spot and handle trafficking.

Reality: Trafficking cases can be complex, and specialized training is often needed to recognize and handle them appropriately.

Myth 8: Traffickers are sinister strangers: 

Reality: It’s a common belief that traffickers are always unknown to the victim. In many instances, traffickers can be family members, friends, or acquaintances who exploit the trust and vulnerability of the child.

Myth 9: ​​Child trafficking is only for sexual exploitation.

Reality: While sexual exploitation is rampant, children face trafficking for many sinister purposes, including forced labor and organ trafficking.

Myth 10: Only girls are trafficked.

Reality: Trafficking doesn’t discriminate by gender. Boys are also victims of trafficking for both sexual and labor exploitation.

Echoes of Trauma: Effects on Child Trafficking Survivors

A. Psychological Trauma:

  • Deep-rooted trauma and PTSD become a part of many trafficked children’s lives. This impacts their mental health, relationships, self worth, and perspective of the world.
  • What may seem normal or even comforting to the average person may be very off putting and even distressing for survivors. Compassion, grace, and understanding, along with quality trauma-informed therapy are paramount to supporting a survivor’s healing journey.
  • If untreated, the persistent trauma can lead to long-term mental and physical health challenges.

Read more on healing and overcoming trauma.

B. Physical Aftermath:

  • Trafficked children frequently face health complications and injuries from their experiences. Many have lasting physical symptoms even decades after the trauma.
  • Many victims were deprived of basic needs and suffered additional trauma due to subpar living conditions.
  • Survivors may take a while to get comfortable around other people, especially crowds or strangers, and feel safe in their surroundings.

Our Collective Role Against Trafficking:

  • Government Measures: Strengthen and enforce laws, amplify awareness, and establish dedicated local and federal task forces.
  • Community Vigilance: By spotting and reporting suspicious activities, communities can reduce the predator’s ability to operate and prevent countless children from trauma.
  • Personal Duty: Awareness, support, and action. Support the organizations on the front lines of the fight against child trafficking in the USA.

In Summary:

Child trafficking remains a dark shadow in our society. The myths and misunderstandings surrounding it only hinder our fight against this crime. With a better understanding and collective responsibility, we can not only raise awareness but also put an end to this atrocious act.

Act now. Dive deeper into preventative strategies in our “Tools & Education” section and stand up against child trafficking in the USA!

EDITORS NOTE: This Veterans 4 Child Rescue column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

National Organization for Marriage #FreeSpeechBus vandalized in New York City

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has joined with the International Organization for the Family (IOF) and CitizenGO, a community of active citizens who promote life, family and liberty, to sponsor a #FreeSpeechBus tour promoting the truth of gender.

Starting March 22nd, the NOM/IOF #FreeSpeechBus is making appearances at the United Nations, Trump Tower, Yale University and other locations with the message that gender is determined by biology rather than by emotions and feelings, and to call on all Americans to respect the free speech rights of citizens to debate these issues without fear of being demeaned, harassed, or threatened with retaliation.

Here is an image of the #FreeSpeechBus:


Brian Brown from the NOM in an email writes:

Our #FreeSpeechBus was just vandalized in New York City. This is a hate crime, and sadly the way that those who pretend to preach “tolerance” feel about opposing viewpoints.

But we will not let this stop us.

Together we will stand up to the bullies and show them that the truth won’t be silenced and that our free speech will not be abridged by criminal acts of hate.


Transgender Challenges

Vandals Spray-Paint LGBT Slogans on Marriage Groups’ Bus Near UN

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may donate to NOM to help repair the damage done to the #FreeSpeechBus by clicking on this link: www.nationformarriage.org/donate.

Men and Boys can no longer be Invisible Victims

Upon returning to the office after hosting a successful press conference announcing our Cosmo Harms Minors campaign about 18 months ago, I received two phone calls that really changed my perspective on how we are addressing these issues. The first call was a young high school student, who rather shyly explained how grateful he is for our efforts, but he urged us to address the impact that things like Cosmopolitan magazine and other media has on young men. He spoke about the peer pressure that he feels to act as males portrayed in this media do and about his own self-esteem issues as a result. Just about an hour later, another young man called with a similar plea to us. I was completely dumbfounded.

You see, I often talk about the harms of this media to young women’s self-esteem, to their physical and emotional development, and to the choices they make. I have largely focused on how bad porn culture is for girls and women, but after hearing from these guys my heart ached over the fact that I was forgetting the fight for their dignity as well.

Just about a week later, Associate Professor Joseph Prud’homme of Washington College and a student from Georgetown asked for a meeting with out staff. They came with an agenda–again pointing out that we had left out the harm happening to boys around the country.

These bold men were the catalyst to changing some of our messaging and set us on a course to develop new way of waging this war. 

Last Friday, after months of preparation with Washington College, we hosted a consultation meeting on the sexual objectification and exploitation of boys and men. Seventeen experts and survivors came from all over the country (and one from Israel!) to present research and key perspectives on how young men are affected by our current culture. It was astounding. My heart still aches for the world that our young boys are inheriting, but I am encouraged that we will be able to lead the charge in the movement and stop ignoring these “invisible” victims. We know now, they are plain to see if one has the eyes to look.

I can’t share details with you right now, but want you to know that we are working on this issue. We must fight for the dignity of all–BOYS, girls, MEN, women. We at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation are doing all we can to this end.

My simple call to action to you today is: Will you share this article on social media to educate your networks on some of these realities?

RELATED ARTICLE: Men and Boys in Sex Trafficking Overlooked

dawb hawkins

Dawn Hawkins

EDITORS NOTE: This column is by Dawn Hawkins, Vice President and Executive Director, National Center on Sexual Exploitation Director, Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation.

Those readers wishing to donate to help protect and defend our men and boys from sexual exploitation may do so by clicking here.

Feminist Teacher’s Lesson Plan: Discriminate against Boys

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And inequality is equality — at least in the mind of Karen Keller, the Bainbridge Island Review and their enablers.

Reported recently was that Keller, a kindergarten “teacher” at Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary in Bainbridge Island, WA, was refusing to let the boys in her class play with Legos during free play time. As the Bainbridge Island Review (BIR) wrote:

In Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom, boys can’t play with Legos.

They can have their pick of Tinkertoys and marble tracks, but the colorful bricks are “girls only.”

“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she said. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

If you’re acquainted with the mental illness masquerading as teaching philosophy today, you can imagine this woman’s problem. As the BIR explained, “Keller…watched with discouragement as self-segregation defined her classroom — her boy students flocked to the building blocks while her girl students played with dolls and crayons and staples, toys that offered them little challenge or opportunity to fail and develop perseverance.” And, of course, innate sex differences evident since time immemorial cannot be allowed, so Keller’s leftist sense of equality compelled her to action. She discriminated so the girls could use the blocks “unencumbered.”

Now, this story quickly went viral, and Keller and the school have since backtracked. It was all a misunderstanding, you see. As the Center for Digital Education reports, “Keller said she instituted a girls-only Lego time during the first month of the 2015-16 school year during free play ‘to get them interested’ in trial-and-error building and math. …Keller said her ‘casual, off-record aside’ [Hell comment] was meant to convey her frustration with marketing to girls in society. She apologized for any problems stemming from the [BIR] article.”

Translation: She’s upset the article caused her problems and frustrated that the “casual, off-record aside” conveyed her true feelings.

This is a reasonable assumption. The BIR piece, written by one Jessica Shelton, is completely sympathetic to Keller’s policy. Among other things, Shelton has a subheading stating “It’s a fair practice” and closes with “While Keller sees more girls in the building area than before, it’s still not the norm, she said. So the boys will just have to wait their turn” (I guess until Hell freezes over). Yet while the BIR wrote a follow-up article last Thursday stating “[W]e have been discouraged by the number of unfair personal attacks made against [Keller]” — including “hate phone calls at her classroom and vicious messages on Facebook” — the editors also wrote, “we stand by what we reported.” Hmm, I wonder if the BIR was discouraged by the hatred directed at Christian businessmen persecuted for not wanting to cater faux weddings or the Christian pizza-shop owner forced into hiding by death threats. Or were those just the broken eggs needed for the omelet?

But perhaps we should believe Keller now. I mean, I’m sure she only lies to people under seven. It’s also interesting that Hell froze over in Keller’s class right about the time her story went viral. Coincidences never end.

There’s another matter. If Keller is really so concerned about girls being discouraged by the boys’ presence (a pity science hasn’t yet weeded those creatures out of the species), there’s a simple solution: create separate boys’ and girls’ Lego areas. But this wasn’t good enough for her; she had to stick it to the boys for being boys.

Moreover, thinking “Yeah, when Hell freezes over” while lying to children to obscure your agenda indicates hostility. Let’s say, for instance, a man teacher was concerned about boys’ lagging reading skills and made reading time “boys only.” What would happen if he admitted he tells the girls they’ll have a turn but thinks to himself, “Yeah, when hell freezes over”? Would he still be employed?

In fairness, some comments pass our lips not as we mean them. On the other hand, philosopher C.S. Lewis once correctly pointed out that it’s when we speak and act spontaneously, without thinking, that our hearts are revealed. And how often do conservatives get a pass on an impolitic, “casual, off-record aside”? They get a career change.

The BIR also wrote that Keller considered her policy “a fair practice ‘because fair is getting what you need to succeed or to get better.’” C’mon, Keller, quote it correctly: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

The BIR continued, “Fair doesn’t have to be the same, and she [Keller] says her kindergarteners get that.” Obviously they don’t, because she felt compelled to lie to them about her discrimination. Also, we didn’t hear how “fair doesn’t have to be the same” when the agenda involved opening the Virginia Military Institute and police and fire departments to women. And if it is true, why trouble over, as Keller does, females being less prevalent in STEM fields and Lego areas and having poorer spatial skills?

Reality: hardly anyone, if anyone at all, really believes in equality. Equality is simply a ruse used when convenient to advance leftism and only remains operative until inequality better serves that end. Just witness the college “anti-racism” protesters who recently ejected whites from their “safe areas.”

Keller is a true product of modern miseducation. BIR says she “faults toymakers for reinforcing” sex roles and is frustrated “with marketing to girls in society,” proving she knows as much about economics as she does about sex differences and teaching. Businesses do market masculine toys to boys just as they charge men more for car insurance, may admit women to nightclubs without a cover charge and create women-only health clubs. Is their goal “discrimination” or social engineering? No, they’re responding to the market. Girls and boys aren’t different because manufacturers market to them differently; manufacturers market to them differently because they’re different.

This is illustrated well in the fine Norwegian documentary The Gender Equality Paradox. Among other things, it points out that women are more likely to enter traditionally feminine fields in an uber-feminist, “egalitarian” nation such as Norway than in more patriarchal India. Why? In poorer lands women have no choice but to pursue lucrative professions, such as computer science; in wealthy countries such as Norway, they have the luxury of following their hearts. And their hearts lead to things girly.

As for Keller, she outed herself. It’s logical to assume her abusive, anti-male mentality will manifest itself in other destructive ways in the classroom. She shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of another child — not until Hell freezes over, anyway.


FordhamUniversity Changes Restroom Signs as Part of ‘Gender Inclusive’ Campaign

Notre Dame Professor Forced to Leave Project Aimed at Faithful Catholic Education

EDITORS NOTE: Please contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“It Is Permissible for the Mujahid to Enjoy Young Boys in the Absence of Women”

Recently a number of Arabic language websites posted the following picture which is attributed to the official Twitter account of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph Ibrahim of the Islamic State.

The Arabic writing reads:

“It is permissible for the mujahid [jihadi] to enjoy young boys in the absence of women.”

The purported fatwa then justifies this position by quoting Koran 52:24:

“There will circulate among them [servant] boys [especially] for them, as if they were pearls well-protected.”

A similar verses (76:19) reads: “There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them [as beautiful as] scattered pearls.”


Boston: Jihad terror suspect shot after threatening cops with military knife

Islamic State threatens ancient monastery filled with Christians

CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust, Sex with Children as Young as 10

CDC: 94 to 95 Percent of HIV Cases among Boys and Young Men Linked to Homosexual Sex

CDC funds “gay” activist groups like GLSEN that promote acceptance of behavior tied closely to HIV.

The following is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults” [1]– breaking down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 (more analysis follows graphic) were from “gay” sex:


With the incidence of HIV among men so closely tied to homosexual sex, shouldn’t the government and all concerned and compassionate adults be urging young men and teenaged boys NOT to engage in or experiment with dangerous homosexual behavior? And yet, the CDC and other pro-”gay” institutions (including many schools public and private) are doing exactly the opposite, as they focus instead on affirming “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” youth as a “sexual minority.”

Feds Fund ‘Gay’ Youth Activist Groups

Another CDC document, “HIV and Young Men Who Have Sex with Men” (June 2012), reports that in 2011, the CDC awarded funds to two homosexual activists groups — the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSAN) — “to assist CDC-funded public health and environmental changes to help schools and communities meet the health and medical needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.” See this CNSNews article on the CDC grant.

With HIV rates growing among YMSM (young men who have sex with men), the CDC’s focus on building self-esteem among LGBT youth and creating a “positive school climate” for homosexuals — includes forming “gay”-affirming clubs in schools — seems disconnected from reality. The aforementioned CDC report on HIV and YMSM states:

“Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) are one approach being used to create safe and welcoming school environments. Research has shown that in schools with support groups such as GSA’s, lesbian, gay and bisexual students were less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because they felt unsafe, or attempt suicide than those in schools without such groups.”

In the same report, the CDC identifies the behaviors among young homosexuals that are causing the escalating HIV rates:

“A CDC analysis of data from 13 YRBS [Youth Risk Behavior Survey] sites found that sexual minority students, especially those who identified as homosexual or bisexual, were disproportionately likely to engage in many health risk behaviors, including sexual risk behaviors (such as having sexual intercourse for the first time at younger ages, having multiple sex partners, and not using condoms); tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use; and behaviors related to attempted suicide.”

Elsewhere in the CDC report it touts CDC funding for “school health professionals … to help them understand the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and shape behavioral messages accordingly.” But those behavioral messages apparently do not include discouraging students from engaging in homosexual sex.

Elephant in the room

The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claiminnate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden.

All across America, “gay” activists and their straight liberal allies are advocating “gay”-positive lesson plans and strategies in response to anti-homosexual bullying. However, while everyone can agree that all bullying is wrong, many “anti-bullying” programs double as pro-LGBT affirmation programs. This is troubling because:1) bullying can be discouraged with neutral messaging that does not promote “out and proud” homosexuality and transgenderism; and 2) in the name of “safety,” educators and cultural elites are advocating a sexual lifestyle that has continually been shown to be dangerous, particularly for males.


[1] Produced by the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention, a division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Data is for 2008-2011.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an edited version of the IPSF HIV/AIDS Campaign Logo created by Amrsobhy. The use of this image in no way implies endorsement of the author or content of this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.