Mass Shootings

Sex Trafficking Panic and Victim Blaming Follow Atlanta Massage Parlor Murders

Rhetoric around the shootings risks putting massage workers everywhere in more danger.

|

A week has passed since gunman Robert Aaron Long killed eight people in a shooting rampage at three Atlanta-area massage parlors. Early reports that the shootings were motivated primarily by pandemic-related animosity toward Asians have proved false; the killer's motives seem to involve a more complex mix of biases and bigotry.

Long allegedly told police he had been a customer of at least two of the businesses, that he was addicted to sex, and that he wanted to eradicate his temptation. People close to Long filled in gaps, portraying him as a self-professed Christian who had thoroughly absorbed sex-negative religious messages but still frequented massage parlor sex workers, all while feeling intense guilt about it.

"For now, we do not know whether the massage parlor workers who were killed would have considered themselves sex workers, and we may never know," wrote May Jeong in a New York Times op-ed. "But the answer is less relevant to their deaths than their murderer's answer: Does it matter how one identifies oneself if a mass killer conflates any Asian woman in a massage parlor with a sex worker?"

But Long is far from the only one making that mistake. A lot of publications (including the Times in other pieces) have conflated all Asian massage work with prostitution and, often, forced prostitution (a.k.a. sex trafficking) while simultaneously suggesting that this is at least partially responsible for the shootings. In doing so, mainstream new outlets are adopting the same logic as countless serial killers and mass shooters, while also minimizing the agency and culpability of these murderers.

Blaming women for male lust is an old and all-too-common trope among those who commit or excuse violence against women. And it's a trope thoroughly rooted in common cultural messages about sexuality. To this day, schools still teach girls to cover up lest their bare shoulders and legs prove distracting to men, while many fundamentalist religious groups say modesty and chastity are women's duties to avoid driving men to sin. We may have come a long way from the assumption that all sexy women are "asking for it," but holding women responsible for men's sexual urges and actions is still far from a fringe attitude. And again and again, we see the milder version of this distorted by the minds of self-loathing psychopaths to hold that women deserve to pay for the desire men feel toward them.

Sex workers are particularly vulnerable to this type of misogyny. Which is why it's especially clueless and crass for certain media to be blaming sex work in the wake of the Atlanta massage parlor shootings.

Take, for instance, this story from ABC News, which randomly cites information from a report about sex workers at massage parlors in New York and Los Angeles to suggest that the Atlanta women targeted by the shooter were probably engaged in prostitution, contra the claims of Atlanta's mayor that these businesses had not been on vice cops' radar. As further evidence, the same article cites prostitution arrests made at these businesses prior to 2013.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also ran with guilt by association, weaving laments about "massage businesses that hypersexualize and commodify women" and quotes about commercial sex from the spokeswoman of a Christian morals group with information about the Atlanta shootings.

The assumption that all Asian massage parlor staff are sex workers isn't merely racist; it's also dangerous, since it can lead to unrealistic expectations among clients, who might not always react well when told otherwise. It may also disincentivize massage staff who do experience harassment, fraud, stalking, and violence from coming forward to police, for fear that they won't be believed.

This is compounded by the criminalization of prostitution, which puts sex workers (and those stereotyped as sex workers) in danger by forcing their work underground, disallowing them from receiving normal worker protections, and putting them at the mercy of police officers.

"Due to sexist racialized perceptions of Asian women, especially those engaged in vulnerable, low-wage work, Asian massage workers are harmed by the criminalization of sex work, regardless of whether they engage in it themselves," the massage worker rights group Red Canary Song wrote in a statement about the Atlanta shootings. "Policing has never kept sex workers or massage workers or immigrants safe. The criminalization and demonization of sex work has hurt and killed countless people—many at the hands of the police both directly and indirectly."

Some coverage of the shootings—like this piece from USA Today, which suggests the businesses targeted by the shooter "may not have been entirely above-board, leaving the women working there particularly vulnerable to abuse and violence"—link sites of criminalized work with increased risk while failing to correctly identify the source of this vulnerability. It's not sex per se—or precarious immigration status, or working without a massage license, or any of the things that tend to get massage businesses termed "illicit"—that makes workers in these situations more vulnerable. It's the criminalization aspect. Criminalization gives any potential vectors of violence or exploitation—customers, cops, bosses, random religious zealots, etc.—something to use against them.

Even when authorities do believe sex workers and/or immigrant massage workers who report crimes, they may still target those reporting for future criminal enforcement.

In one recent case in Kansas City, massage business owner Chunqiu Wu and several women who worked for her were stalked and vandalized by Robert J. Gross, a man who had been on police radar for decades and was suspected in multiple homicides (including the murder of two massage workers, one in 1979 and one in 2016). Gross had evaded local law enforcement for years, but—despite his defense lawyer's insistence that Wu and her employees were sex workers and thus couldn't be trusted—the feds were able to put him away after these women testified against him in court.  

Authorities repaid the women for this service by targeting their workplaces for prostitution stings, putting Wu under FBI surveillance, and setting up an elaborate scheme to entrap her on federal charges. Posing as an out-of-state massage worker who claimed to know one of Wu's employees, the FBI decoy reached out to Wu seeking work. The informant casually mentioned that she had sex with clients at her current job; Wu told her absolutely not—but suggested that "hand jobs, add-on services, just simple things like that" would be OK if she was discreet.

Wu agreed to pick up the woman from the airport when she arrived, where the FBI was waiting to arrest her. Wu was charged with violating the Mann Act of 1910, a law—passed in the grips of America's first sex trafficking panic—that criminalizes bringing someone across state lines for prostitution purposes. Before long, prosecutors were smearing Wu as a human trafficker who earned a living "from the sexual exploitation of women."

This sort of chicanery is common in law enforcement and the media. In the wake of the Atlanta shootings, the most egregious examples come from The New York Times, which chose—a few days after massage parlor staff were viciously slaughtered by a madman—to run an article titled "The killings targeted an industry with a history of concerns about sex trafficking."

Despite there being no indication that the Atlanta shootings had anything to do with sex trafficking, the Times took tragedy striking Asian massage parlors as one more opportunity to spread fear and lies about them.

"There are more than 9,000 such businesses in the United States that are fronts for prostitution, and that many of the women working there are being exploited," the Times states, attributing this alleged fact to "experts."

The source is in fact a report from an anti-sex-worker nonprofit called Polaris Project, which essentially drew the figure out of thin air. To reach the number 9,000, Polaris Project read Rubmaps reviews in some cities, trusted that anonymous customers claiming sexual activity was offered were never lying, and then multiplied the number of reviews it read by some unstated quantity to extrapolate across the country. It also simply declared that sex acts meant sex trafficking was taking place, sans any evidence at all.

This sort of baseless insistence that most Asian massage parlors are human trafficking dens is not only a gross and racist act of victim blaming, but it can even put massage workers at more risk.

In recent years, federal law enforcement and local prosecutors have have become obsessed with nabbing "human traffickers" at Asian massage parlors—even if they have to create them (as in Wu's case) or outright lie, like in the 2019 Florida massage parlor stings that drew national attention for ensnaring New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft or the nonexistent "sex trafficking ring" that Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) claims to have busted up.

Myths about Asian massage parlor sex trafficking are used by cops to justify elaborate investigations and sting operations. But the only ones such antics seem to be helping are the cops who get paid to get massages (and more), the police departments and city governments who get to seize cash, cars, and homes from massage parlor owners and workers (asset forfeiture is a near universal feature of these cases), and the prosecutors who get to play hero to the press about it all.

Even when the police aren't directly chasing women to their deaths or extorting sexual activity from them, these sorts of stings further strain the relationship between massage staff and/or sex workers and law enforcement and drive the industry further underground, making it even harder for those who really do need help to get it.

Meanwhile, anti-prostitution groups claim to be "helping victims" by lobbying for stricter laws surrounding massage businesses more generally—laws that could wind up putting more massage workers at more risk of violence from psycho customers and folks with racist or sexist agendas.

As I pointed out in my 2020 story on massage parlor panic, one of the Polaris Project's main campaigns in recent years has been targeting massage parlor prostitution from what they described as a "code enforcement perspective" with "a massive grassroots campaign to get these restrictions passed in as many jurisdictions as possible."

The restrictions that so-called anti-trafficking advocates want include things like tougher occupational licensing law requirements for people becoming massage workers (which would push the most marginalized populations out of legal businesses) and rules barring things like keeping front doors locked during business hours, using a buzzer to let clients in, or having obscured windows.

Their rationale is that taking away said options will somehow discourage forced prostitution since cops and code inspectors would be able to more easily keep tabs on these businesses and enter at any time. But in actuality, these regulations would just make it harder for staff to protect themselves from people like the Atlanta shooter.

NEXT: Most Americans Have Not Put on Pandemic Weight, Actually

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It would be great if the rhetoric and reporting around the shooting were more intelligent and accurate. Too bad your ENB and we have already seen you lie about this specific story, so your complaints and observations and wants are at best hypocritical.

    1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an BHGYeasy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page….. Visit Here

  2. schools still teach girls to cover up lest their bare shoulders and legs prove distracting to men, while many fundamentalist religious groups say modesty and chastity are women’s duties to avoid driving men to sin

    Totally explains why men compete in sports au natural like the Romans intended and women wouldn’t be caught dead playing sports like volleyball or even contact sports like football in their underwear (obligatory link).

    1. The quarterback throws like a girl.

    2. I miss the LFL.
      Those games were surprisingly brutal.

      1. *glares over smoked lenses*

        It almost sounds like you’ve got doubts about Ditka’s ability to lead the league.

      2. girl sports are brutal … they have zero playground decorum

      3. Wait, that was real?

        1. Yes it was. And glorious

        2. It’s still real. It went from Lingerie Football League to Legends Football League, took a break due to COVID, and is supposedly coming back, same atheletes, same teams, different names, as Extreme Football League (or something similar).

    3. And one of the best links ever. Beats working online, if you know what I mean.

    4. If the hosts/analyst/whatevers had a beer in hand that would have made the picture complete.

  3. “But the answer is less relevant to their deaths than their murderer’s answer: Does it matter how one identifies oneself if a mass killer conflates any Asian woman in a massage parlor with a sex worker?”

    But do we have any reason to believe the killer was specifically conflating “Asian woman in a massage parlor” with a sex worker as opposed to conflating any woman working in a massage parlor with a sex worker?

    In the area where the shootings happened, how many massage parlors are there that are not owned by and/or not mostly staffed by Asians vs ones that are owned by and/or mostly staffed by Asians?

    Where are the two sets of massage parlors located relative to each other?

    Is there any reason (beyond a desire by some to make this about race) to believe that the shooter deliberately bypassed/avoided massage parlors not owned by and/or not mostly staffed by Asians?

    1. Hell, better question. Is there any real reason to believe that a sex addict going on a hooker murder spree didn’t go to massage parlors he knew from experience were fronts for prostitution.

      1. Damn you and your conciseness!

      2. Valid point, Wish I’d thought to include that.

    2. But do we have any reason to believe the killer was specifically conflating “Asian woman in a massage parlor” with a sex worker as opposed to conflating any woman working in a massage parlor with a sex worker?

      Considering the guy patronized two of the establishments, on what basis is “conflation” on his part being asserted?

      ENB is “right” in her own stupid framework to combat the larger conflation, but clearly projecting motives onto the killer, in contradiction of his behavior and actions here.

      1. “Considering the guy patronized two of the establishments, on what basis is “conflation” on his part being asserted?”

        Valid point and he wouldn’t be the first killer to target prostitutes.

        1. Sex addicts tend to want to hide their actions. They are extremely shameful of being one. They dont go out and kill – notoriety is the opposite of what they want. A serial killer wants the notoriety. Just because some serial killers have a fetish for sexual violence does not mean they are sex addicts.

          Most people have probably never even heard of SAA (Sex Addicts Anonymous), and its because of the above. No one wants that shit to get out.

        2. So in essence, I agree with you.

    3. The area’s basically ATL’s red light district. Some really good restaurants too. Interesting road.

      1. That doesn’t say anything to answer my questions.

        1. Wasn’t my intention, but ok.

          “But do we have any reason to believe the killer was specifically conflating “Asian woman in a massage parlor” with a sex worker as opposed to conflating any woman working in a massage parlor with a sex worker?”
          Not that I’ve seen.

          “In the area where the shootings happened, how many massage parlors are there that are not owned by and/or not mostly staffed by Asians vs ones that are owned by and/or mostly staffed by Asians?”
          There’s probably a half dozen or so, all Asian. Several strip clubs and sex toy/apparel shops as well. There’s a Massage Envy a couple miles away, but that’s a chain and the only non-Asian massage place in the vicinity.

          “Where are the two sets of massage parlors located relative to each other?”
          You can look it up pretty easy, but the first shooting was at a place 30 miles north on I-75.

          “Is there any reason (beyond a desire by some to make this about race) to believe that the shooter deliberately bypassed/avoided massage parlors not owned by and/or not mostly staffed by Asians?”
          No. All the happy-ending-massage spots in ATL that I’m aware of are predominantly Asian.

    4. Why would the shooter lie about his motivation? He ADMITTED to the murders. The gist of his narrative was that he was getting some sort of sexually related gratification from the workers at these establishments. He’s also an acknowledged religious Christian extremist who was open about his overwhelming guilt over the sexual acts, whatever they were. He didn’t say that all Asian women are associated with sex trafficking or sex work. Could it be the massage parlors are just conveniently located for him? Is it unimaginable that his religious-based guilt drove him to violence as the only solution in his twisted head? He wouldn’t be the first. Generalizing this automatically as a HATE crime might be off the mark, although on the surface it’s convenient for promoting yellow journalism and more insidiously, fear…

  4. Why can’t we just admit the guy is obviously mentally ill, and doesn’t really reflect on society at all?

    1. But then who do we blame? And don’t say the shooter because we can’t politized that.

    2. because we need to link all shootings to racism and something Trump said never mine the shooters mental state even though as often teh case the shooter has not intent but to kill because they are Nucking futs.

      1. I have to take issue with one part of your comment. Just because a killer is nucking futs, that doesn’t necessarily negate the intent to kill.

        1. Granted, one can be crazy and not murderous. But crazy is a good precursor to being an active shooter…or a serial killer. Or even an insurrectionist.

  5. ” To this day, schools still teach girls to cover up lest their bare shoulders and legs prove distracting to men, while many fundamentalist religious groups say modesty and chastity are women’s duties to avoid driving men to sin.”

    and on the other side, you have “go ahead and get black-out drunk at a strange frat party, because if you can always cry rape if something happens that you regret.”

    Between over-cautious prevention of regrettable sexual encounters vs. encouraging women to make bad decisions to help the men are rapists narrative, I pick the one that isn’t bat-shit crazy and dangerous

    1. Between over-cautious prevention of regrettable sexual encounters

      Not that you’d know it from reading ENB’s piece, but there are plenty of other reasons besides “Don’t get raped!” to wear shirts and pants.

      Matter of fact, it turns out that some women voluntarily amass piles upon piles of shirts and pants for no other reason than to be seen wearing them. Once.

      1. How do you know my mother-in-law?

        1. Everybody knows somebody’s mother-in-law, except ENB.

          1. I would presume that ENB knows her grandmothers, both of whom would necessarily qualify “somebody’s mother-in-law”.

    2. I went to some preventing sexual assault against women symposium my friend was speaking at in college.
      Brought up the question of encouraging women to act responsibly and how best to do so.
      It was not warmly received.

      1. “It was not warmly received.”

        It’s called blaming the victim. The implication is that women are raped because they behave irresponsibly. This makes the rapist less blameworthy. Arguing to let the rapist off the hook is probably not something you should do if you ever attend another symposium on preventing sexual assault on women.

        1. Your misinterpretation of what he said says more about you than him.

          1. That I can ‘read between the lines,’ to coin a phrase.

            1. I bet you can also hear the dog whistles, can’t you?

            2. you’re such utter garbage tony

              1. Flag my comments if you feel they are abusive.

                1. Hahahahaha… Come-on, Tony.

            3. Sorry, but psychic powers do not exist, so you have zero ability to preview/know internal motivations of someone based upon a single question.

              For all you know, the questioner has a daughter and was wondering what common sense things can be done to minimize rape risk – whereas if their daughter were actually raped they’d never blame her no matter what, but out of natural protective instincts would still like to instruct her on any/all behavior which minimizes risks.

        2. That’s bullshit. Do you leave your doors unlocked at night because home security is “blaming the victim”? I’m sure intruders will appreciate that kind gesture and leave you alone.

          No one who tries to protect themselves from being a victim of crime believes that the perpetrator doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted. You do it because you DON’T WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Which leads one to suspect that feminists don’t actually want to prevent women from being raped or assaulted. They seem to value women as human beings less than they value them as political props. Makes sense, since they’re all basically marxists.

          1. Was it BS? Seems mtrueman was giving prevention advise to Nardz; how not to become a pariah at a women’s symposium. Just as Nardz was giving prevention advise.

            1. I wasn’t even giving advice, I was asking the question if ideas like “don’t go to a frat party alone and get hammered” has a place within programs that seek to reduce sexual assault of women in college, because it hadn’t been mentioned.
              And I wasn’t made a pariah, I was met with a total lack of ideas about how to balance women’s right to autonomy and not be assaulted against personal responsibility in not putting themselves in excessively vulnerable situations.
              You can tell (potential) rapists not to rape women in (potentially) vulnerable situations all you want, but it’s not going to be all that effective.

              1. Got ya. I was just kind of laughing at mtrueman.

                And damn lack of edit, advice isn’t advise.

          2. Do you actually think feminists want women to be raped and assaulted and are all Marxists? I suspect you’re just parroting things you’ve heard elsewhere.

            And what exactly do you expect feminists to use as political props if not women and their experiences?

            1. When did he post anything that assumed as such? You in competition with jeff and sarcasmic with dumbest strawman of the week?

              1. Within the past couple of hours.

            2. Many feminists don’t care about preventing rape. They care about using rape to promote their Marxist agenda. The ones who aren’t Marxists are dishonest or stupid, or both…because feminism is just another anti-human Marxist ideology

              (Plot twist: I’m a woman)

              1. Careful. I have urges.

                1. Why do you hate women? And I’ll be sure to not be stupid enough to be alone with you.

                  1. Based on his reading of my anecdote, no woman should ever be alone with him.

                2. Pretty sure girls are safe around you, Tony.

            3. And what exactly do you expect feminists to use as political props if not women and their experiences?

              Holy Fuck! “Without political props, how are women supposed to care about each other, or other people?” That’s some pretty impressive cognitive dissidence!

              You do realize that you can oppose all kinds of assault entirely without regard for the players involved or their genders, right? That other people find ways to care about stuff without needing strings to pluck or muppets to pantomime good guys and bad guys for them?

              1. “You do realize that you can oppose all kinds of assault entirely without regard for the players involved or their genders, right?”

                Because they choose to. Others choose not to ignore genders. Why is that a problem for you?

          3. And this comment hit the Mark head on! Feminists hate women. Bottom line.

          4. “Do you leave your doors unlocked at night because home security is “blaming the victim”?”

            I leave my doors unlocked at night because I live in a safe neighborhood and I’m absent minded,

          5. Common sense is all too uncommon these days.

            Men aren’t animals – they are responsible to control their behavior – just like women are – and keep their hands to themselves. There are more dangerous places to be than others. It’s always personally imperiling to become publicly intoxicated or otherwise insensible on drugs. A man can be victimized as quickly as a woman while vulnerable. Predators come in all races AND all genders.

        3. People blame the victim in alot of cases why should this be different? When people get stuff stolen out of their car the usual answer is “you shouldn’t have left anything in your car”

          1. “I’ll walk through the Bronx with my tits out at night if I want …. I’m a modern woooooo-man!!!”

          2. Feminists prefer to blame the rapist rather than the victim of rape. It’s just a fad, I’m sure.

            1. Having someone’s point go flying over your head, is that just a fad?

          3. At least have the good sense to hide your gear out of sight. Being a hard target isn’t a guarantee, but it lowers your odds with the bad guys if you don’t advertise.

        4. Do you enjoy completely re-writing people’s comments in your head and then having conversations entirely with yourself?

          1. “Do you enjoy completely re-writing people’s comments in your head and then having conversations entirely with yourself?”

            Mostly just the most empty-headed comments. Brush up their spelling, help say what they really want to say.

              1. Don’t read my comments if you don’t like the message. Everything’s going to be OK.

                1. I prefer to mock you and shut you up Tony

                  1. Go ahead and mock. All you’ve offered up to now are moronic comments.

                    1. Well, now you’re just victim blaming.

                    2. And all you’ve offered are fake arguments created by lying about what others said, then arguing against those lies.

                      Congrats – you’re very, very stupid, but just smart enough to prove you’re stupid very quickly.

        5. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

          If a woman fails to lock her door and is raped, telling her she was raped because she failed to lock her door is victim blaming.

          If a woman hasn’t been raped yet, and you suggest some tips to avoid it such as keeping her doors locked, it’s not victim blaming.

          1. [T]elling her she was raped because she failed to lock her door is victim blaming.

            That’s not victim blaming. Victim blaming typically involve some sort of moral judgment against the victim (i.e. “she deserved it because ….”)

            Stating that she was raped because she failed to lock her door is just a fact.

            1. Stating that she was raped because she failed to lock her door is just a fact.

              It’s a highly reductive fact. For instance, it’s possible she was raped because– and I’m just spitballing here– a certain European government took in millions of immigrants from rapey cultures and failed to integrate and/or police those immigrants when they should have been focused on integration and assimilation.

              1. Oy vey!

              2. This is also a factor and it is a risk factor which all need to consider. If one KNOWS this is the case with a certain group, one makes the extra effort to steer clear and not imperil oneself. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when the “rapey culture” offender is arrested, tried and jailed for offenses committed. Likewise, potential danger should not go unrecognized and flaunted as inconsequential. People do need to take responsibility for their actions, take precautions when indicated, and recognize the laws of the culture in which they reside/visit.

          2. “If a woman fails to lock her door and is raped,”

            Lock her door… I assume you mean wear her chastity belt. Who would be crazy enough to give a woman keys to anything?

            1. She was raped because she did not have a gun. Ipso facto, gun regulations raped that woman. Ergo, liberals rape women.

              1. So, you’ll only rape a women you know is unarmed. Thanks for sharing.

                1. So, you’ll only suck cocks rotting with gangrene? Thanks for sharing.

                  1. That’s just a scurrilous rumor spread by gangrenous homosexual men. I deny it.

              2. That’s pretzel logic if ever I have read it. How about the scenario where the offender beats the victim to the gun and the victim dies from gunshot from his/her own weapon? The armed individual does not always prevail. Reality isn’t the same as television…

                1. How about the scenario where the rapist is also a lock smith so locking the door is meaningless. I guess therefore we just shouldn’t ever lock our doors just like we should never have firearms just in case they might be used against us.

                  Idiot.

            2. It’s not the greatest analogy, few people have locking doors on their kitchens.

            3. Why do you hate women?

          3. Wrong. Both examples are victim blaming because all women are victims all the time. /sarc

            1. No – a lot of the time men are victims.

        6. Why do you hate women?

        7. If you want to have an actual conversation about how to prevent crime, a good premise to start with is to not assume you can just criminals to stop being criminals by complaining about “rape culture” and instead take proactive measures to not be a victim.

          It’s not just about women wearing slutty clothes
          If I walk around with my head in my phone in the middle of Compton, I’m going to get jumped and never see it coming. If I leave my wallet lying out at a college party, it might get taken. If I leave my car unlocked it might get rummaged through. If I leave my front door unlocked and open, a burglar could just walk in and take my tv. Doing any of the things I did doesn’t make me less of a victim of a crime but it sure does show I could have done more to not be a victim. No one is arguing the perpetrator gets a free pass because I acted stupid. Same goes for women acting irresponsibly.

          It sucks but it’s reality. You shouldn’t go through life expecting bears to not live in the woods. Instead, you should walk in the woods with bear spray and a gun.

          I don’t think judging women’s clothes is even a particularly effective way of rooting out “irresponsible” behavior. Rapists are creeps and their thought processes aren’t always rational to non criminals. The fact that this shooter found a massage joint to be too much for him when strip clubs and free internet porn exist, is exhibit a that criminals don’t always thing rationally. Instead of trying to rationalize away criminality and asking creepy men to outthink their temptations, start avoiding irresponsible by knowing where sketchy and dangerous situations can arise, avoiding them and being armed.

          If you want the conversation to be “how to get men to stop being rapists” you keep going down the same path where you never get real about the shitty side of human nature and wish for a utopian society where criminals don’t exist and bad people don’t get horny. But for thousands of years, that has never worked. Or you can start the conversation at, “how do we avoid so many women being victimized” and that conversation quickly leads to teaching them how to identify and avoid unsafe places and staying strapped.

          1. If you want the conversation to be “how to get men to stop being rapists” you keep going down the same path where you never get real about the shitty side of human nature and wish for a utopian society where criminals don’t exist and bad people don’t get horny.

            Ironically, this thinking and method is more likely to lead to burkas and victim blaming.

          2. AMEN….be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Fewer opportunities, less crime. Plain and simple.

    3. “while many fundamentalist religious groups say modesty and chastity are women’s duties to avoid driving men to sin”

      *cough* (Islam) *cough* but for the sake of the narrative, let’s pretend that those heavily made up Evangelical girls sweltering under a pound of hairspray are the ones being hidden from the male gaze.

    4. ^This. As much as ENB wants to bitch about the prudish fundamentalists encouraging girls to dress modestly, the problem isn’t the prudes. Not to seem crass or uncaring, but which model sees the higher instance of rapes and sexual assaults:People behaving modestly and engaging only in sexual activity within the bonds of marriage, or the frat party anything goes culture? Not saying either is a perfect model or that people must be prudes and never have fun. I’m just identifying high risk versus low risk models. An even better model of behavior than either of those two is to not trust your safety in the hands of strangers and instead be prepared to defend yourself (the best method for this is by being armed).

      1. Chaste =/= no fun. Prude =/= chaste, either.

        But the rest, all agreed.

      2. Being smart is better than being armed any day. Then there is the issue of being mentally ready to actually KILL a criminal before they take the gun from you and kill you. Legally and with justification. This isn’t tv, movies or a video game because when it’s desperate enough to pull a gun on someone, it’s literally dead serious business.

  6. This Atlanta mass shooting is so last week. Do try to keep up.

    1. But evil white men are forever.

      #spreadAIDSnothate

      1. EVIL in any color or gender will be around forever.

  7. “Early reports that the shootings were motivated primarily by pandemic-related animosity toward Asians have proved false; the killer’s motives seem to involve a more complex mix of biases and bigotry.”

    Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason’s resident dimwit, still cannot let go of the race narrative (and, the fact that she perpetuated it blindly) so she has now pivoted to the murder being inspired by a “complex mix” of strange and unidentified biases and, of course, bigotry … somehow.

    Proof of Long’s supposed bigotry against Asians? None to be found.

    This sort of baseless insistence that most Asian massage parlors are human trafficking dens is not only a gross and racist act of victim blaming, but it can even put massage workers at more risk.

    Bitch, it’s not baseless.

    Go back to writing about giving handjobs.

    1. Bitch, it’s not baseless.

      Go back to writing about giving handjobs.

      If you happen to be standing by the target when the shotgun in her hands goes off, that’s on you.

  8. Long allegedly told police he had been a customer of at least two of the businesses, that he was addicted to sex, and that he wanted to eradicate his temptation.

    “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

    1. “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” – Matthew 19:12

  9. This article raises some important points but it also goes too far in a couple important places. Holding someone accountable for another’s actions merely because of the clothes you wear is unconscionable. Holding someone accountable for the urges or the distraction that they generate in others, however, is a simple recognition of human nature.

    If you walk naked through the average workplace, you are going to be a distraction. It doesn’t matter whether you are male, female, good-looking or not. It’s inappropriate and it’s not victim-blaming to tell you to cover up. It’s no different than distracting your coworkers by playing the radio too loud, wearing offensively heavy perfume or obsessively clicking your pen. Reasonable people can disagree over what level of distraction becomes unacceptable but to claim that it’s only the viewer/listener/smeller’s problem and that the distractor has unlimited rights to disrupt is just absurd.

    Again, none of those justify your coworker taking violent action against you but it’s entirely reasonable for your manager, teacher, etc to tell you to knock it off.

    1. “Holding someone accountable for the urges or the distraction that they generate in others, however, is a simple recognition of human nature.”

      So if a man can’t perform his job properly because he’s too distracted by a woman he has urges for, then it’s the woman who should be fired? That seems wrong to me, human nature notwithstanding.

      1. Can you re-write that again?

        1. “Holding someone accountable for the urges or the distraction that they generate in others, however, is a simple recognition of human nature.

          1. And you read that and saw:

            “So if a man can’t perform his job properly because he’s too distracted by a woman he has urges for, then it’s the woman who should be fired?”

            Is it a reading comprehension thing, or an eye problem?

              1. Are you being dumb on purpose or just a troll?

                1. Troll = being dumb on purpose

      2. Did you can’t into reading comprehension on purpose or was it accidental?

      3. So a woman who feels uncomfortable with her coworkers watching porn on the big screen during their lunch breaks…. come on now, drag this bullshit down to its ultimate conclusion. The person uncomfortable with a coworker don’t anything up to including and including saying they want to rape you is either fine or you acknowledge that we do put some limits on things in Acworth of reality and are just quibbling on where to draw the line.

        1. Lunch breaks are a part of the whole patriarchal system feminists are trying and succeeding to break down. Women like to nibble on things throughout the day. It’s just human nature.

        2. Ask a woman how she feels about someone staring at her while breastfeeding.

          “It makes me uncomfortable”

          “You baring your breast in front of me makes me uncomfortable, too. I think your words were ‘grow up’.”

          1. Most women use a cover over their shoulder when in public to conceal the baby nursing. It’s common courtesy. There are lots of NON-nursing women who bare as much breast and think it’s sexy vs vulgar.

      4. Yes, keep the woman walking around naked, fire everyone else.

        1. Because we all know that people only feel urges when they see a naked woman walking.

          1. Well, we all know you feel no such urges.

            1. ‘We all know’ is my line. Be a man and come up with your own shtick.

              1. “Be a man …”

                Bigot.

              2. If you hadn’t told us that you were gay every chance you get Tony, maybe you’d have a right to be huffy.

      5. Well, that might be wrong – but it’s not what I said at all. Can you attempt an argument that’s not a strawman?

        1. “Well, that might be wrong – but it’s not what I said at all. ”

          You want to hold women to account for distracting men and making them feel urges. Yes or no?

          1. I want to hold everyone to account when they are intentionally disruptive. I do not care about urges because urges alone do no harm. However, I resent when people try to make others feel guilty for the urges they themselves provoked.

            You, for example, inspire all sorts of urges toward minor violence and profanity with your willfully stupid comments. I do not feel guilty because I do not act on those urges no matter how well justified they seem. But I also recognize that if someone else weakened and responded with profanity, you would deserve a measure of the blame for provoking the situation.

            1. I disagree with this. If men are incapable of doing their work because a women in their midst has distracted them, it’s unfair to hold the woman to account.

              1. So you’ve still got nothing but strawman arguments and won’t actually address what I wrote. Why do we bother?

              2. That certainly comes with a plethora of mitigating circumstances, now doesn’t it?? Topless bars (women) and male bartenders, or Wall Street business high rise with males and females? Define distraction… clothing? personal habits? leering? cat calls? power over stunts? subversive tactics?

  10. Doesn’t this guy have a lawyer telling him to shut up? Sounds like he’s just fucking with the media/police. It just doesn’t make sense as a motive except to get everyone all riled up.

    1. If he has mental issues – he doesn’t go there. One cannot apply sane rules of conduct to the insane.

  11. https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1374399103866564612?s=19

    when you find out the shooter’s name is Ahmad Al-Issa but you’re woke

    1. “Okay. Listen up! We fucked up on the white guy thing. How do we pivot? Any thoughts??”
      “Um …”
      “Come on interns!! Any thoughts?”
      “… maybe pump out articles condemning white men for the inevitable backlash against Muslims?”
      “Okay, I like where this is going ….”
      “I have a Muslim friend — er, well, I know of a Muslim guy … he was my Uber driver last night …”
      “Get him in here for an interview …”
      “Okay …. but …”
      “NOW!!!!”

    2. opening the borders was definitely a good idea, in light of this

      1. He was a long-term resident of the United States… quit with the border/immigration crap.

    3. It must be just breaking the media’s heart that this guy didn’t have a mullet and a pick-up.

    4. Different shooter. That’s the guy in Colorado. The article above is about the attack in Atlanta. As the article above clearly says, the Atlanta guy’s name is Robert Aaron Long.

      1. He’s quoting the tweet, not the article.

        1. Uhm, why? More specifically, why here? There’s an entirely different article about the Colorado incident.

  12. The constituency/demographic most opposed to legal prostitution and that believe it should be punished most harshly is…women.

    1. Well, yeah. They don’t want their currency devalued.

    2. To be fair, no one likes competition.

      1. In some ways, I believe the left is bringing us full circle. Odds they land on respectable women needing escorts and burkas in public and men having open access to prostitution.

        We already arrived at marriage Consensual sex contracts.

  13. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1374402415617740812?s=19

    National security agency found Boulder shooter only used basic methods like Tor and commercial VPNs while planning attcks, but was not on FBI radar due to low prioritization under Wray, per WH official

  14. arly reports that the shootings were motivated primarily by pandemic-related animosity toward Asians have proved false;

    You wouldn’t know it by reading my local newspaper, which has gone full Yellow-Lives-Matter in the last week.

    1. I mentioned this before; local news is reporting him as the guy who kille 6 Asian women.

      Fuck the white dude and the spic lady.

    1. Careful Greenwald, heresy is still an offense, only the gods are different.

  15. Under the radar media narrative: “the second mass shooting since the country reopened from covid restrictions”

    1. the lockdowns worked!

  16. “The assumption that all Asian massage parlor staff are sex workers isn’t merely racist; it’s also dangerous…”

    The assumption that all of any demographic is any particular thing is racist and dangerous.

    1. Racist, yes. Dangerous, no. Would you feel better if he’d killed 8 massage parlor workers in racial proportion accurately reflecting the US population at large?

      1. So six would be white, one would be black and one would be half Asian half all other races?
        I think that the left would be pretty pleased about losing six trailer-trash MAGAtt voters. Hell, chemjeff would probably copycat that if he weren’t to fat to leave the house.

        1. In the scenario of shooting 6 white guys in an Asian full service massage parlor the probability of them not being 6 lefties is low. Of course the lefties would be there for the man that was shot though.

  17. I just long for the days when you could go into a bar and pick up a hippie girl with no bra, smoke a little pot, and have sex with no drama.

  18. Very well written. This in particular struck me “…To this day, schools still teach girls to cover up lest their bare shoulders and legs prove distracting to men…”

    I have been saying the same thing for so long. The idea of what is doing the distracting, be it a female, a piece of clothing, or the sun is the problem is beyond absurd.

  19. We have helped women trapped in this industry to break away. What these Asian pimps do is coordinate with their counterparts in Asian countries of Vietnam, Thailand, etc, to lure low educated women, some are underage, to the US with promises of work as “Models”. They put together a “Portfolio” for them that they barrow to pay back along with the travel and visa documents. Once here, they have debt that they cannot pay back and are compelled to work the debt off providing massages initially, then sex acts later. It is a grooming process. These parlors are EVERYWHERE and should all be shut down as they keep the women in debt that they can NEVER pay back. They barely speak English, many are illiterate in English and their own native language. They lose all hope. Look in your communities and you will see them everywhere. You drive by them everyday and not even think about it. They need to be shut down IMMEDIATELY, and many are, but they pop up elsewhere within a few days. The sex trade is NOT victimless. It is very easy to get fake birth certificates in their home countries to smuggle girls as young as 13 into the country to service the sex industry. As far as the police are concerned, they are over 18 and release them right back to their “friend” that shows up to bail them out, then back to the parlor to service more clients.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.