Christian couple to open first safe house in USA for sex-trafficked boys. The local community doesn't like it.

[–]LifeMedic38 points39 points40 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]dfdfxsd29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bugeyed77721 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oldredder8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jace816 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cashews4U2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The official policy of the Salvation Army is to deny homeless boys age 12-16 access to their shelters. Their policy is literally to throw a 12 year old homeless boy out on the street. "For their own good" of course.

The same is unfortunately true of basically ALL "shelters" and "rescue missions" -- even ones that are for adult men.

The thing is that you really CAN'T blame the shelters... in most states they are FORBIDDEN from housing (or even providing "daytime shelter" or food) to "unaccompanied minors."

See anyone under 18 is essentially not considered a "person", but rather a piece of property that in essence "belongs to the state"; so other than the kid's own biological parents, only entities that are specifically licensed BY the state as a "foster home for children" and which are then "under the supervision" of whatever the state's "Child Services Department" is called, are allowed to house "unaccompanied minors"; most especially boys.

Worse yet is that most "domestic violence shelters" not only reject MEN and their children, but are seen as existing ONLY for women & their children -- with "children" defined rather narrowly as girls (of any age) and young boys -- as such they will categorically EXCLUDE the teenage sons (including in some instances pre-teen boys of 11 or 12, {especially if they are tall or large for their age}) of those same women; and many times (if the woman refuses to part with her son) they reject the women as well.

Exactly what happens with those teenage boys if/when the mother IS willing to part with them in order to enter the shelter ... well it varies from one place to another; but typically the state "Child Services Department" is called to essentially "deal with" the boys... and depending on the situation, that typically means (at best) placing them in foster homes or more likely into some "group home"; and in some instances (in regions that don't have available "beds" in group or foster homes that are willing to take teenage boys, and most aren't) they get "placed" into the local county's "juvie" jail.

Not surprisingly, many of those boys (if/when they are aware of what is likely to happen) will choose to run away and attempt to make it on their own. They then get tagged as essentially "delinquent runaways" and if/when they do get caught, will generally be treated as if they were criminals (and subsequently get stuck in and transferred around the various county juvie jail systems until they either ACTUALLY commit some crime {including "avoiding arrest", or "hitting an officer of the law", getting into some fight within the jail, etc}, in which case they stay in that system as charges are then brought, and sentences imposed ... or possibly {if they somehow manage to NOT "cop a charge"} they get returned to their former home county and put into the foster care system).

About the only way one of those kinds of "left in the lurch" things doesn't happen is if the family (or extended family like grandparents) has substantial money and/or influence... but of course most families with money & influence never end up in the situation of encountering "shelters" (instead mommy drops the kids off with her parents or in-laws, and/or runs off with them to one of the vacation homes while she files for divorce, etc).

Basically -- except when they need a scapegoat to blame -- our society just doesn't give a shit about males (men OR boys).

For a short period of time -- say 1850's to 1950's -- there were entities like the YMCA (which was originally far more about providing clean, safe & cheap HOUSING you "young men") ...but of course those have been almost entirely taken over by women, and their original purpose & character has simply been discarded; in no small part because they've been "outlawed" and sacrificed on the altar of feminism (after all you can't have some "apartment building" or charitable entity that by definition "DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMENZ" by only {or even preferentially} housing young MALES!)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristoff131 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is the only reason, the rest is just window dressing.

Not really.

Teenage boys DO present a very real "criminal" problem.*

But the thing is that they present that problem largely BECAUSE places like this "shelter" are virtually non-existent, and because the system itself quite literally -- by default -- treats any/all "homeless teen boys" as if they were already "hardened" criminals.

And many of them more or less ARE (have become "criminal" -- not just prostitutes but thieves, etc), because the system itself and subculture of society they got caught up in makes them that way.

Per example if/when so called "runaway" teen boys are "apprehended" (or even if they turn themselves in), they are quite commonly tossed into one kind of a "juvie jail" or another, simply because the system doesn't HAVE many alternatives set up (certainly not on the local level) to take care of them or accommodate them in any other fashion. And of course if you take a 12 or 13 year old boy and toss him in with a bunch of bigger 16 & 17 year old boys (most of whom HAVE actually been arrested for committing any of a number of different crimes), well his survival requires him to "toughen up" (or worse he gets abused while in the system and reacts to that by acting out)... end so that he likely begins to learn various skills adopt & behavior patterns that are considered "criminal" in civilized adult society.

End result is the "creation" of yet another "angry young criminal."

EDIT: There's even another cause -- teenage boys quite literally really have no OTHER alternative.

A whole host of laws and regulations essentially DEBILITATE them and (for all practical purposes) force them into a variety of criminal behaviors.

Consider that a 14 (or 16, even 17) year old boy, even though he is probably fully CAPABLE of working a full time job, and earning enough money to take care of himself, etc...

Well -- unless he's been "emancipated" (a virtual impossibility) -- he's LEGALLY not allowed to doing so.

Various "compulsory schooling" and "child labor laws" actively PREVENT any legitimate business* from hiring them in a LEGAL fashion (in many cities, even kids living at the parent's homes need not only the legal "permission" of their parents to work a part time job, but they literally need a "work permit" from their local school district's administration -- even if they are NOT enrolled {and legally allowed to "drop out" at age 16}). Add in that -- even if they HAD a job and could find some "landlord" willing to rent to them -- well legally they're not allowed to sign a "rental agreement" or other contract.

* And the absurdity of is just doesn't stop; there are even people pushing for laws & regulations & "rules" to prevent FARM KIDS from being allowed to work on their own family's farms!

* EDIT 2: Especially when we're talking about "troubled" teenage boys (broken families, no families, etc) at any sizable population (i.e. above a hlaf-dozen); i.e. any substantial group of them will likely contain one or more boys who -- especially when adult male oversight is minimal -- are GOING to cause problems; the thing is you cannot really identify-in-advance which boy or boys among a group that will be. (BTW, that's not only true of humans, but other highly social animal species as well -- cf the various articles on the "adolescent male elephants").

[–]Cristoff130 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point. Concerns about property values aren't the cause of this behaviour, but the excuse.

e.g. "I'm not comfortable with this black family moving next door, but I don't want to seem racist... Oh wait they might somehow hurt my property's value, so I'm not really being racist, I'm just looking out for my family's future!"

Not necessarily. The concern about property values IS also a very real concern.

And yes it IS affected by both local crime as well as things like race. It isn't "racist" in the ideologically derogatory sense of the word to understand and acknowledge the reality of that. In fact it can be argued to the be in DENIAL of that reality is to actually engage in the kind of "ideologically blindered" mindset (and the derogatorily "racist" concept that "white people" have to rescue everyone else; which at it's root contains the [unspoken] corollary belief that "because they CAN'T take care of their own").

But yeah these kids could make trouble, but on the other hand they do deserve a break.

Well, yes ... and yet no.

It depends on where they're coming from; whether this is a "help 'local' youth" (with 'local' meaning "taking care of our own" by at least some definition, either the county, state, or region, or at the widest "from our own nation/country"), or if it is some quasi-'global' thing, essentially importing kids from entirely different cultures.

First because while kids DO "deserve a break" that break/assistance really OUGHT to be coming from, or at least take place mainly within or near their own home, society, culture.

Secondly, if the kids being helped are "local" then there is/should be some natural limitation to the size of the operation -- and/or it will be related to how well the "local" area is doing at resolving the ROOT CAUSES of the problem; because this kind of thing is really only a trivial "palliative" that barely scratches the surface.

Because the opposite, if the kids are being brought in from outside... especially from VAST distances -- then there essentially is NO "natural" limit (i.e. the planet has 7 billion people; global "estimates" are of anywhere from 1 to 2 million kids being "sold" [added] into "sex slavery" every year, rather obviously no single facility [located anywhere] can even make a "dent" in that); but of course there WILL have to be some limits imposed at any given point in time, and by definition that will be a somewhat "arbitrary" number (doubtless reinforced/supported by one or more ostensibly logical/practical "rationales", but the point is it will NOT really be at all related to the size of the problem, nor the local population, etc).

Also because the number/limit WILL in fact be arbitrary, it will mean that the SOURCE(S) of the boys that are helped, will in fact be "selected" according to one criteria or another. IOW if the limitation/general "rule" is not that the facility is to help "local" kids (and thus geography defines the "who gets helped"), and instead the proverbial net is cast worldwide -- then some OTHER criteria will be used: and that criteria is VERY likely to be "discriminatory" (either racially and/or ideologically motivated, "cherry picked" to fit some politically correct agenda -- i.e. taking in muslim boys from Syria, Libya, or even "Bacha Bazi" Afghanistan, but utterly rejecting White Afrikaner boys from South Africa {because the problems in the LATTER are "politically incorrect" and cannot b acknowledged to even exist}).

I've never really considered how hard it must be for teenage boys under 18 to become independent. I don't think this has ever been that common, but it used to be easier. But its hard for anyone under 21 or even 25 now to become independent in America.

In all seriousness, go watch a film like Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino -- but focus on the young people rather than the old man -- and understand that in reality the vast majority of "ghetto kids" that become gang members, dealing drugs & engaged on other crime to obtain money and status (and all too often end up in & out of jail/prison, etc); well at some point nearly ALL of them probably would have really PREFERRED (like the character "Thao" in Gran Torino) to become successful via PRODUCTIVE endeavors and work; it's just that they have no viable "path" to that. They lack the older adult male guides & role models, they lack the opportunity to obtain LEGAL "productive" employment (and without having to kiss arse to obtain some arbitrary "work permit" and etc).

The thing is, THOSE PROBLEMS cannot be solved by some outside entity selectively "rescuing" 1 out of 100 or 1:10,000 of those kids.

And in THAT sense, entities like the above linked "shelter/home" -- unless they ARE dedicated to the local kids (and since it's all about that specific "sex trafficking" problem, it's almost certainly NOT) then really it's not about "solving" any problem... and is more about pretending to be "noble" and etc.

[–]maokei1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]methylotroph16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]methylotroph10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lets not beat around the bush: this is human nature, it has always been human nature for society to want boys to take it hard, let the strong ones rise to the top to become studs and the rest die. Wombs are fundamentally more valuable, to be cuddled and protected.

I would say that it is more properly stated as being animalistic behavior.

Humanity HAS -- at times and in certain places -- managed to rise above it (and largely stayed that way for one or more generations).

Cf The distinction between a "High-Trust" culture & society versus a "Low-Trust" culture. (Snippet below via http://www.whatsbestnext.com/2011/06/low-trust-cultures-vs-high-trust-cultures/):

Supervision

In a low-trust culture, supervision is associated with words like control, monitor, hover over, and check up. In a high-trust culture, people supervise themselves according to the agreement. [And at most the supervisors may "spot check" things.] The criteria are clear, the consequences are set. There’s common understanding of what’s expected. A manager, leader, or parent becomes a source of help — a facilitator, helper, cheerleader, adviser, counselor, and coach — someone to remove the oil spills and get out of the way.

Evaluation

In a low-trust culture, you’re into forced ranking, external performance evaluation, and judgment. In a high-trust culture, the judgment goes into the performance agreement before the fact instead of after the fact. People judge themselves. Their evaluation is not just a function of measurement, but also of discernment. “The numbers are looking good, but I feel a concern about this particular area…” People are much more aware of the issues that affect their performance and success. [Note: The “discernment” here should not devolve into subjectivity. It needs to be anchored objectively in the mission and values of the organization.]

Span of Control

In a low-trust culture, the span of control is small. It takes time and energy to hover over, to check up. You can only control so many people. In a high-trust culture, you don’t need to hover over and check up. You aren’t trying to control but to release. Instead of one to eight or ten, you have one to fifty, one to a hundred, one to two hundred.

Motivation

In a low-trust culture, you’re into “the great jackass theory of motivation” — the carrot, out in front, the stick behind. In a high-trust culture, people are internally motivated. They’re fueled by the fire within. They’re driven by a sense of passion about fulfilling a shared vision that’s also a co-mission, a synergy between their own mission and the mission of the family or organization.

Structure and Systems

A low-trust culture is filled with bureaucracy, excessive rules and regulations, restrictive, closed systems. In the fear of some “loose cannon,” people set up procedures that everyone has to accommodate. The level of initiative is low — basically “do what you’re told.” Structures are pyramidal, hierarchical. Information systems are short-term. The quarterly bottom line tends to drive the mentality in the culture. In a high-trust culture, structures and systems are aligned to create empowerment, to liberate people’s energy and creativity toward agreed-upon purposes within the guidelines of shared values. There’s less bureaucracy, fewer rules and regulations, more involvement.

Of course people from "Low-Trust" cultures think everyone in a "High-Trust" culture is a complete and utter FOOL (i.e. The "Low-Trust" mindset is akin to "If there's no surveillance camera, and no one is watching, and there is no other way for anyone to pin the theft on you, why wouldn't you steal the cash from the drawer?"; by contrast the idea of such a theft wouldn't even occur to someone with a "High-Trust" mindset). For more on the differences, and why the two mindsets/cultures are incompatible, see: http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-re-colonization-commonweal.html

As for that "fuck em" mentality being "human nature" (i.e. animal level or "instinctive") and therefore ostensibly INEVITABLE...

Well, I'd move that it need not be.

It is POSSIBLE for a society to have a "moral conscience" and to inculcate that throughout it's culture. Cf the sort of mini-exposition on "Moral Philosophy" within Heinlien's "Starship Troopers", the most pertinent part of which is:

["...] You see, they assumed that Man had a moral instinct."

"Sir? I thought -- But he does! I have."

"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it. What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everwhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do.

"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive -- and nowhere else! -- and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.

Part of that training can be the inherent BENEFITS (for everyone) of the "High-Trust" culture; and conversely the COSTS (to everyone) of a "Low-Trust" culture.

Our western nations & societies were (for about a century) "high-trust" cultures -- but for the past 1/2 century now (and longer if you dig into the roots/origins of the cancers) that has been under a multi-front attack, and has been incrementally eroded undermined & subverted by a series of "low-trust" cultural mindset memes (in business the "Financialism" and the MBA/quant meme; in politics & via that the rest of society by the various socialism & feminism & egalitarianism memes; in philosophy & 'science' [so called] via anti-theism and post-modernism, etc) -- and of course most recently those elements have spurred the literal "invasion" of our high-trust cultures by a mass influx of people from low-trust cultures.

Which is why the "high trust" cultural segments are retreating to "gated" communities and quite frankly soon even that won't be enough, the "gates" and "fences" will need to be replaced by "walls" -- and I'm not talking about walls on the national border; but walls around literal small "enclaves" (as in the medieval "walled cities") inside of which will be a "high trust" environment & culture, and outside of which it will revert to the "chaos" of the "low-trust" cultures.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abandonedthrowaway328 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JacksterTrackster1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CongenialVirus-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CongenialVirus-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

Comments

Teenage boys DO present a very real "criminal" problem.*

I would say that it is more properly stated as being animalistic behavior.