pimping learning-disabled women

On Monday 21 May 2012 Radical Feminist Julie Bindel was on the BBC Radio 4 programme Woman's Hour. She had a debate with Dennis Hof the Nevada brothel owner. The presenter was Jane Garvey. At about 33 and a half minutes into the programme (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hw6g5) she stated that when she had gone to Nevada to investigate the legal brothels there she had found learning-disabled women who were being double-pimped.

This is my transcript of what she said:-
Julie Bindel: I actually met learning-disabled women who had been double-pimped who had been taken by their pimp to the legal brothel and delivered to the brothel owner who then becomes a business man or business woman and they were working those women in prostitution despite their deep learning disabilities and trauma. It's horrific. 
Jane Garvey: Dennis, I mean, I dare say that does not go on at any of your establishments. But you cannot argue with that. That is truly appalling, isn't it.
Julie's original report on her trip to Nevada is available in a few places online. It doesn't mention learning-disabled women. It mentioned one learning-disabled woman who she called Sindy, who apparently was not being double-pimped.

In Julie's Guardian newspaper article of 11 October 2017 she doesn't repeat her claim that she 'actually met learning-disabled women who had been double-pimped'. Neither does she repeat the claim in her new book 'The Pimping of Prostitution'. She does write about Sindy though. So what happened to all the other learning-disabled women that she claims to have met? They never existed. She never 'actually met' them, she actually made them up. She needs to be called out on the lie she has told.

It's easy to see what she was trying to achieve. She wants people to think that if prostitution is legalized in Britain then we would see learning-disabled women forced into prostitution here. It makes you wonder what else she has said that's a lie. It makes you wonder what else Radical Feminists say is a lie. I know that they are often influenced by extreme left-wing politics, so maybe they think the end justifies the means.

This is what she wrote in her Guardian article:-
In Nevada, where brothels are legal, I interviewed a brothel owner who was pimping out a severely learning-disabled young women who had been sold to the brothel by her boyfriend’s father. The fact that the brothel this young woman was being sold from was legally sanctioned and seen as a business – no different from a restaurant – meant that the pimp was able to present herself as doing her employee a favour by giving her a job.
Employing someone in a brothel without meaningful consent is I would think illegal in most countries. Employing someone anywhere without meaningful consent is I would think illegal in most countries. Whether it's a brothel, a restaurant or a factory. If not then it should be. Someone who is learning-disabled or underage cannot give meaningful consent. I don't think it was right that Sindy was in a brothel. It might have been better than on the streets or in an underfunded institution (this is America after all) but they could have put her on laundry duties.

However, the image of a heartless male brothel owner using an unwilling learning-disabled woman is hardly borne out by what Julie wrote in her original report. The brothel was run by Susan Austin who seems to have wanted to do what's best for Sindy.

This is from Julie's original report:-
We walk past Sindy, a very young looking woman wearing little and looking vacant. Austin draws us in conspiratorially. 
“She’s actually a nine year old in an adult body. She will never be anything else,” she whispers.  “She’s been in foster home after foster home. Her boyfriend is in jail for child pornography. She’s been with him for ten years: she just turned 22. “ 
Austin tells the story as though she is running a home for abused children as opposed to a brothel. She tells us that the man who sold Sindy to the brothel is her boyfriend’s father, that Austin refused to send the cheques to him, and is managing Sindy’s money for her. 
“I called the girls to a meeting and told them, we’re raising a child but she’ll never grow up. When she parties, one of the girls will go and sit in the bathroom, to make sure the man doesn’t take advantage of her when he realises what he has. 
I ask why, if Sindy is learning disabled and vulnerable, Austin has put her on the game.  She does not like my question. 
“She’s been having sex since she was really tiny,” she says. “She loves sex.  But she’ll be nothing more than just a sexual little girl. It’s very sad. I can’t let her go cos she’d be on the streets in Florida, so I’m stuck.  I’ve got this little girl who’s a woman. So we’ve all made this pact that we’ll take care of her. 
Susan Austin wasn't sending Sindy's 'earnings' to anyone else. She paid her former boyfriend's father some money but that's it. So Sindy was not being double-pimped. So there were no learning-disabled women who had been double-pimped.

No comments: