Guilty By Association or Only By Participation: Three Things That Cause Human Sex Trafficking

In the box office thriller, Taken, Pierre Morel is the director who has now made millions on showing us what it’s like to see a loved one taken by force into the sex trafficking industry and sold to greedy, selfish, and corrupted people to be abused for entertainment and sexual gratification. Many of us wish that there was a real life Bryan Mills who could single handedly put an end to commercial exploitation of individuals, but not even William Wilberforce was able to completely end slavery for the whole world in 1833 when the British parliament passed his bill to ban transatlantic human trafficking.

However, the bill did lead the way on this issue and has set the standard ban almost all countries have now adopted (Human Trafficking). This was a remarkable accomplishment for an individual and for our society, yet laws alone cannot stop the human trafficking industry. This industry exists because our current society either associates with or participates in the market that feeds it.

Human trafficking is considered a form of slavery, and slavery is the process by which in individual is placed under the domination of another. Slavery is nothing new to current society; records as early as 2500 B.C.E. show how enslavement was implemented in the Sumerian Civilization (Coffin 11). However, culture has changed over the course of history, and what was current in the Sumerian Civilization and what was the current form of slavery during the American Civil War is not quite what it is now. The most current form of slavery is human trafficking for sexual purposes (Rodriguez and Hill). Statistics estimate up to 27 million men, women, and children are currently enslaved worldwide (U.S. State 7), more than at any other time in human history (Guay).

Why is slavery so vast and why is sex trafficking culturally relevant? Could it be that innovators advertise old news in a relevant way to create new commerce? For example, mankind has often wanted or needed to travel for survival, discovery, conquering or other purposes. Therefore, innovators were able to design things from the wheel and the chariot, to boats, motor vehicles, planes, and so on, to meet the demands for travel. Humanity has a natural inclination to travel and innovators have cultivated a market for profit from selling vehicles and plane tickets permitting our traveling demands. Likewise, exploiters are now using slavery in a relevant way to meet demands of the twenty-first century.

When America was in the nineteenth century, cotton was a big industry and many land owners employed slavery to assist in the farming of this product. The society at this time mainly employed manual labor because it was culturally relevant. Between the end of the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, we see a society with more freedoms and more technological advances. One of those technological advancements came in the form of computers with the ability to connect to each other via the World Wide Web (Internet).

With the explosion of the internet over the last two decades, came the proliferation of one of humanity’s most natural inclinations: the desire for sex. Mankind’s natural inclination for sex is understood in the natural process of reproduction. However, reproduction is technically a benefit of sex as an outcome for biological success. Therefore, sex is more than just reproduction for humans, and the natural desire for it can be easily illustrated through the sudden increase of internet pornography.

Pornography can be defined as “material that contains explicit sexual subject matter intended to arouse sexual excitement (Online Pornography).” Once again, the explicit use of human imagery for sensuality isn’t a new novelty (Coffin 96 and 112), but nudity is more culturally relevant because of the internet avenue used to promote pornography. Statistics estimate pornography is searched for 68 million times daily, and that our society spends 97 billion annually on this content (Internet Pornography Statistics. Why is this so significant to human sex trafficking? Because in an exploiter’s mind, where there is a desire, there is potential for business.

If a business wants to profit from what they have to sell, they will evaluate whether or not people will pay for the product before it goes into mass promotion and production. When we take a look at these numbers, it becomes evident internet pornography is a huge industry. Human trafficking is also a large industry. In fact, it is the third largest and fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world (Rodriguez and Hill). Profits from human trafficking are estimated to be around $44.3 billion annually, with the majority of that coming from sex trafficking (Human Trafficking). It stands to reason, then, that pornography contributes to the sex enterprise for human trafficking because it is sex trafficking only in a different medium. Victims of sex trafficking are forced, abused, and coerced into this labor and are bought for pleasure. Likewise, pornography is viewed for pleasure, at the expense of the people exposed online. People may volunteer their bodies to be filmed or photographed (Wallance), or they may be coerced (Cleveland); nevertheless, association with or participation in pornography validates using the image of people for private pleasure of the viewer. And if the image is validated, what’s going to stop a person from taking it a step further and validate raping a woman who was trafficked? Will the law stop them?  It hasn’t yet.

Pornography is not the only cause for sex trafficking, but it does contribute to trafficking as a gateway for what industry can do with people. However a vital key for industry is not just the product, but also the profit. Our society operates under a universal medium for trade called money. The more money you have the more things you can acquire in your name. The less money you have the more money you need to survive. Because money is such a necessity for society and is also a tool for gaining power and influence, it is sought after by just about everyone.

People are not just trafficked for the love of sex. Individuals are sold, forced, deceived, and coerced into this industry because of the money that can be obtained. A study performed by the International Labour Organization estimated in 2011 that there were 456 million workers “living below the $1.25 a day poverty line (The Millennium 8).” This is a recipe for unfortunate circumstances because individuals in poverty may be deceived by the “job” they took, when in fact they are trafficked for sex. Parents or other adult relatives may sell children into this industry because of the state of poverty they live in. Brothel owners make their financial gain after initially purchasing, coercing, or forcing the individual into their establishment and then repeatedly selling the victim for sex.

I’ve never been in a brothel, but I saw one from the outside. I’ve never talked with a brothel owner or a parent who has sold their child into slavery, but I did e-mail an organization who rescues sex trafficked victims from brothels and this is the report I received: “Traffickers can be anyone and everyone, including law enforcement and government officials. Especially where the countries have corrupt systems in place, again, it takes it back to money and the lust for more. A lot of girls who come through our program have mentioned ‘it was this nice lady who knew my aunt and uncle.’ They usually give false promises of a job in the city working in a restaurant (USA Office).”  

You see, the desire for money will compel a relative, a government official, or a business agent to turn over another human to be victimized by the sex trafficking industry. But not even the love for money or the desire for sex can be attributed as the only causes for human sex trafficking. First there must be a demoralization of an attitude toward human life. It is not possible to maintain a sense of dignity and self-worth within the context of a humble attitude and associate or participate in the things that cause sex trafficking. To place value on oneself and maintain humility generates a perspective of equality or less than to others. In which case, if an attitude of self-worth is sustained by an individual it would be outside the confines of their ego to get involve in an industry prone to take advantage of them. Therefore, to keep a humble opinion of oneself within the context of that self-worth, they would not sell, force, deceive, or coerce another human of equal or greater value into that which they cannot go.

Alternatively, when this barrier is broken and one allows their pride to impose the idea that individual self-worth is more important than others, they lose grasp of their own mortality and the basis of which humility was derived, thereby initiating the ego needed to devalue life and become the source from which contribution to sex trafficking can be made. In other words, if a man maintains a sense of dignity and self-worth within the context of dominance, he will engage either by association or through participation in the things that cause sex trafficking.  A historical narrative written on the life of Jesus of Nazareth records him putting it this way: “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks (The Life Application Study Bible Luke 6:45).” In essence, if what is defined as “good” by Jesus is put in our thoughts, our actions will be “good.” But if we put “evil” in our thoughts, very simply, our actions will be “evil.”

Thus the vast number of people enslaved and the cultural relevance of human sex trafficking are a result of these three causes stated above. The industry hangs on these three causes because if an individual ever allows his pride to elevate his self-worth over another human being, he will use his dominant ego to enslave, denigrate, and or robotize people for selfish pleasure. He cannot have both humility and self-worth and treat others in hostility. However, he can still desire sex and remain humble because of the mutual partnership of marriage. He may also desire money and remain humble because money is the universal tool of trade and can be gained through submission of work without lowering self-worth. However, take humility out of the equation and a proud man can attain finances through associating or participating in sex trafficking. Take humility out of the equation and a proud man may desire sex outside the partnership of marriage because his dominant opinion of himself permits him to treat others as though they have something to offer him. This selfish motive can either lead to association with sex trafficking by viewing pornography or by direct participation.

Works Cited

Cleveland, Stephanie. "Pornography Is Harmful to Women." Feminism. Ed. Christina Fisanick.

Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Hot Cherry Pies:

Pornography and Justice for Women." www.adonismirror.com. 2006. Opposing

Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Coffin, Judith, et al. Western Civilizations Their History & Their Culture. 17^th ed. V 1. W.W.

Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, 2011. Print.

Guay, Justin. "Economic Development Causes Slavery." Slavery Today. Ed. Auriana

Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Economic

Foundations of Contemporary Slavery." Human Rights & Human

Welfare. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

"Human Trafficking." Human Trafficking. Ed. Christina Fisanick. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,

2010. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

"Internet." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Opposing

Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

"Internet Pornography Statistics." Addiction. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,

2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

"Online Pornography." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit:

Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.

Rodriguez, Amanda Walker, and Rodney Hill. “Human Sex Trafficking” FBI.gov

Stats & Services. Reports and Publications. LED. March 2011. Web. 15 Oct 2013

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-

bulletin/march_2011/human_sex_trafficking

“The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012” UN.org International Labour Organization.

2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013

The Life Application Study Bible. NIV. Ed. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Illinois: Carol

Stream, 1997. Print.

USA Office, Rachel. “Re: I have a quick question.” Message to Jordan Gayfield. 10 Oct. 2013. E-

mail.

U.S. State Department. “Trafficking In Persons Report 2012”. pg. 7. June 2012 Web. 15 Oct

2013 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/192587.pdf

Wallace, Benjamin. "Online Pornography Creates a Unique Creative and Entrepreneurial Outlet

for Individuals." Online Pornography. Ed. David E. Nelson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,

2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Geek-Kings of Smut." NYmag.com.

2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Are Young Readers Being Influenced by What They Read?

When I was a kid I liked to read stuff like If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, or when I was a teenager any of Brain Jacques’ books about talking animals in the land of Mossflower often captured my interest. But young adults are getting bombarded with less harmless reads in today’s current culture. Meghan Cox Gurdon is on the forefront of examining this topic as a Children’s Book Reviewer for The Wall Street Journal. On March 12, 2013, she delivered a speech to the Hillsdale College campus, which in turn was adapted into an article entitled “The Case for Good Taste in Children’s Books” for the Imprimis issue, a publication of Hillsdale College.

In Gurdon’s speech, she addresses the category of Young Adult (YA) literature as "becoming increasingly lurid, grotesque, profane, sexual, and ugly." She explains how this becomes a meta-message to children and young adults, condoned by adults, as what to expect in reality. Therefore, condoned bad taste in YA literature is taking a turn toward normalizing distorted portrayals of life leaving the reader feeling coarseness, emptiness, and sorrow as opposed to experiencing beauty, wisdom, and morality through good taste in book choices.

As I was reading this article on Meghan Cox Gurdon’s speech, I started to wonder what her opinion would be regarding the numerous books that seem to be influencing the Young Adult literature with their explicit content. Would she propose to banish them? Would she argue for more clean and moral depicting stories? How about the authors? Would she demand they stop writing? I discovered what she proposed to be rather reasonable. Her stance goes like this: “I do not, in fact, wish to ban any books or frighten any authors.”

“What I do wish is that people in the book business would exercise better taste; that adult authors would not simply validate every spasm of the teen experience; and that our culture was not marching toward ever-greater explicitness in depictions of sex and violence.” She refers to content from three different books to support her opinion that YA literature is full of these depictions: The Marbury Lens, by Andrew Smith, Rage by Jackie Morse Kessler, and Anatomy of a Boyfriend by Daria Snadowsky.

While Gurdon admits near the end of her speech that books she supports like Hansel and Gretel, Beowulf, and the story of David and Goliath, have gruesome and scary depictions, she argues they have a redeeming quality that is uplifting and transforms the scene of violence into something beautiful. Whereas, on the contrary she states: “the problem with darker offerings in Young Adult literature is that they lack this transforming and uplifting quality. They take difficult subjects and wallow in them in a gluttonous way; they show an orgiastic lack of restraint that is the mark of bad taste.”  This appears to be a brutal attack against the very authors Gurdon said she didn’t want to frighten, but it isn’t. Instead, it’s an argument vocalizing how counter intuitive it is for adults, whether parents or authors, to condone this sort of bad taste in YA literature. Gurdon parallels this kind of approval to anti-drug and anti-tobacco programs in elementary and middle schools. While kids take in the message that drugs and tobacco are bad, they see the meta-message that their expected by adults to use drugs and tobacco. The correlation is a meta-message in YA literature that, Gurdon, claims normalizes violence, sex, and abuse to be expected in the young adult’s life or friends lives.

Admittedly, Gurdon agrees with her critic Sherman Alexie who wrote a rebuttal to Gurdon’s twitter article that started Gurdon’s radical disproval of  “dark content” in Young Adult literature, asking her “does she (Gurdon) believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will somehow shock a teenager whose life has been damaged by murder and rape? Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?” I respect Gurdon’s honesty to include the opposing view point and agree with it. But after agreeing with him, Gurdon takes it a step further by stating: “I also don’t believe that the vast majority of 12-to-18-year-olds are living in hell. And as for those who are, does it really serve them to give them more torment and sulphur in the stories they read?”

This remark settled the matter for me. The way I see it, if an author’s reason for depicting explicit and detailed descriptions of sex, abuse, and violence in books oriented toward 12-to-18-year-olds, is because the minority of teenagers experienced this in reality, then what does that say about justification and validation? Should we also justify all “darkness” in the world and try to normalize it because the minority experiences this “darkness”? It’s like trying to justify abortion for all people because the minority of some unfortunately experience rape. What message does this send to those young adults who have a good life and free will? If they or their friends experience abuse, then does that mean abuse is okay, because well, it’s a social norm, at least in literature? What about sex? Just because sex is normal in books, does that now mean it’s okay to experience it at a young, developing, immature age? 

Gurdon expresses the idea that adults should exercise judgment when it comes to deciding what children and young adults read, because if children have ultimate reign over what they read, why does adult judgment in every other area of life suddenly vaporize as soon as it comes into contact with printed word? I don’t think that adults should be a gatekeeper into the realm of literature, but neither should they omit all judgment leaving a developing young mind to see the world through a distorted lens of graphic violence, sex, and abuse. Therefore an adult’s stance should reflect one that has the child’s best interests in mind. A perspective Gurdon shares, which is why she concludes her speech by quoting Saint Paul the Apostle out of Philippians 4:8 “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praise worthy—think about such things.” And then goes on to say: “And let us think about these words when we go shopping for books for our children.”

I think this sums up her speech and this adapted article quite eloquently. How can a child or young adult be thinking about anything excellent or praise worthy if the content of the book has no redeeming qualities, only a wallowing grotesque denigration of reality? What Gurdon and I now ask, is not that author’s stop writing, but that they would exercise better taste of virtue and life in their stories. They should give their readers a book that’s uplifting and full of beauty, and less full of sallow hope and gruesome imagery. 

The "Bad" Side of Town.

"There's a nice library downtown you can visit if you like," said my mom. "You don't want to be there after dark though. It's not the best side of town..."

"Did you hear about that man fishing in your pond?" Said my neighbor while I was paying him a visit. "I have," I replied. "My mom told me all about it." "You can't trust people anymore nowadays." He responded. "You know that man lives down the road from us. There's a lot of bad people down there..."

"I actually don't know this area very well." I admitted to a pair of new friends from my first time at church. "Tell me more." "Well there is some real nice buildings and historical structures you can check out downtown." My new friend advised me. "There's even a dollar theater. But you won't want to be there after midnight, it can be kind of sketch."

To be honest, these accounts are fabricated based on my memory of the conversations so they are not word for word, but the topic remains truthful.

On 3 separate occasions this month I've had 3 discussions with 3 different people from diverse walks of life about unsafe areas with untrustworthy people. I've only been in this community for a month...

What, then, compels us to speak about our own town in this manner?

I'm sure you've experienced something similar at one point in your life. There always seems to be a "bad" side of town that attracts "up to no good's" and whether they're friends or family who advise us, we are often steered clear of these areas, mostly at certain times of the day (as if zombies come out to eat you if you stay out after sunset).

The premise of these conversations are usually beneficial and well directed, but somewhere in the midst of being concerned for your friend or your relative's safety, the conversation can take a turn towards one of judgement, condemnation, and marginalization. I am guilty of this, too. But lately I've been examining the result of these conversations and how to approach talking about the "bad" side of town without casting judgement or marginalizing people as a ramification of their location.

My points of view will be personal, public, practical/logical, and biblical.

Personal:

As a result of contemplating why we consider the inner city or downtown sections unsafe or unfit for us to venture into, I came upon an opportunity to get involved in said area with my local church.

One of the lady's from the church I've started to attend this past month runs a food-bank ministry for the church. For the past year this lady has organized the donation and purchase of non-perishable food products to be distributed within the inner-city to low income housing residents. I had the honor of tagging along this past Thursday.

We loaded her car with about 8 equally packaged bags and drove ten minutes into one of the most historical parts of town. Just a few days prior I had come to this very area to celebrate my father's 25th anniversary of employment to his company. His boss and many of his co-workers had dined with us in a historical restaurant by the water. This was a fairly expensive place which I deduce draws middle to upper class clientele. Yet only a few streets away happen to be The Virginian. A place I will acquaint  you with now.

The Virginian, I presume, was a hotel of prestige at one time as Thomas Jefferson was a guest. Yet now it has lost much of it's grander, other than the marble walls in the lobby, and nobody of distinction, I fear, would wish to be found dead in the place. The current residents are on welfare (for whatever reason, but none that I wish to address here), living in a building without central AC or heating I believe. Each floor has it's own unique odor (none pleasant) and access to a single elevator, which I've been told hardly ever works.

We loaded a grocery cart with the food we brought and proceeded to go from floor to floor delivering to residents we had on a list for that week's rotation. Every two weeks the lady I assisted makes a delivery to The Virginian, but never with enough food to feed everyone. The goal is to provide consistently to those they've build friendships with and for a few who are disabled and unable to make it out to collect from other social services.

In spite of being in the midst of one of the 'roughest' parts of town, I never once felt in danger (keep in mind this was at 10 in the morning). In fact, many of the residents would greet us sincerely and often would wait for us when they knew we would be using the elevator. One gentleman we ministered with confessed to us that he'd like prayer for deliverance from black magic, voodoo, tarok cards, evil spirits, demons, voices, etc. But even in that I did not feel afraid. I was joyful that we were able to pray with him and believe with him that the power of Jesus could expel any weapon formed against him. More over, once we had finished delivering food we were approached by a woman in need of a ride to the YMCA to pick up free food and then to her home. We humbly did as she asked with no concern for our welfare as it was not being put into question.

The least promising thing that came from our trip was the fact that though we had successfully distributed food and given a ride to a young lady, we saw what appeared to be a confrontation between police officers and some residents outside of The Virginian. I am not sure why they were there, but if I had to postulate, it would be because we witnessed lots of smoking. I assume the illegal use of marijuana could have been a possible outcome. However, this does not verify the danger to a person nor the need to avoid such locations. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

In a location with very little income, influence of unhealthy habits, and people with physical disabilities, how can I as a Christian, as an individual, as a human being, not feel sympathy for these people? How can I judge them for the state they live in without ever considering the circumstances that brought them to that place. Why would I allow my preconceived notions of downtown's, of inner cities, and "bad" parts of town influence my behavior toward these people? Are they less human because they live in a area with a poor reputation? A reputation, mind you, that I've only ever heard described as the "bad" side of town from people who live outside this location. Yet I found that even in our efforts to "help" them with food and prayer we still judged them.

As we were getting ready to pray for an older gentleman who served in World War 2, I set on the ground a box I had been holding. The box's purpose was to hold more bags of food than our hands could carry. The box made it easy to transport food from one level to another without having to haul individual bags. Since the box was valuable to our needs we were keeping it instead of getting rid of it. I made the mistake of setting the box on the floor of the lobby in The Virginian only to be snapped at not to do so. I understood the floor was sticky and perhaps not the most sanitary place to set something down, especially since we planned to place more food in it for our next visit, but the quick snap brought my mind not to the person we were getting ready to serve (who by God's grace we were able to minister to), but rather the slum conditions they live in and thus the reason we, who live in an area with clean floors, are superior to them. This is not at all the mindset we carry with our words, but our actions seem to indicate otherwise.

The final straw that broke the camels back came when the lady we gave a ride to the YMCA and then  home kindly offered us a couple bottles of water. No offence to the lady I was volunteering with, but she denied the water. Why was it necessary to say no thanks to a person who was only trying to repay the favor? Again, why live in a way that indicates "I'm better than you because I have a car and money to buy purified bottled water?"  Sure the water was not purified or from a natural spring and taking a drink would not increase our health, but it doesn't hurt to accept the gift. I took the bottles in respect of her offer and the fact that I really needed what she was giving me as it was a hot day. I drank and I have not yet died. I drank and I have not yet received worms. I drank in the attempt to accept where this lady was from and the conditions she lives in as not being harmful to me in any capacity. I drank in the attempt to acknowledge in myself that her circumstances don't define her, and to show her I'm willing to submit myself to them because I want to honor her existence, not as a means to do good works within my religion, but as a person who lives and breathes and moves. A person who has value. A person who has been given the same kind of love I have been given whether or not she has received it, I don't know. But I believe she is a person who is loved by Jesus Christ. And Jesus through life and death displayed a love so strong nothing can separate her from it.

Conclusion:

It is evident to me that people because of their location are looked at as lesser humans. As if their location defines them as scum rather than people. Whether we realize it or not, my opinion carries that we marginalize people because of their circumstances.

(Again, I'll address this more from a biblical perspective, the public's opinion, and also more on the practical ways this is done and if it is healthy or unhealthy to do so in upcoming posts. But for now I only want you to see my personal experience with people inside the city.)

Let it be known that I do not live in said area and have only visited a few times, but each time whether it was in my own town or a different city in a different country (referring to my Vancouver experience), I have not felt at harm. It startles me then, that we even say there is a "bad" side. Does a reputation of moral, and perhaps more accurate, legal corruption taint you with fear of people? It doesn't swallow me up with fear. In fact, my heart longs to get to know these people so that I may have a better understanding of them and their difficulties. If I understand their hardships, I can do what I can to help ease their burdens and share mutual happiness with them in this beautiful world we live in.

My personal view is based on my religion which would agree with the statement that all people are loved by God and because of that love I have received, I now have the grace to offer it to everyone I encounter. This means I shouldn't be judging a person because of their location or even past affiliations with moral or legal failure. I have the obligation to treat them with value as if they never made a mistake, because to assume I have the right to judge them for their mistakes would be, in effect, ignoring my own moral and legal failures. If I am not worthy of love, and yet I am loved, how then can I have the audacity to not treat others in the same love I have received? By stating there is a "bad" side of town, I conclude that there have to be bad people and that because I'm not in that location I must not be bad. But the reality is, I know I am! Therefore, I cannot bring judgement upon those people at all, but especially because of their location. I must then conclude that because I am bad and that they are also bad, there is no distinguishable delegation that can be made in regards to there being a "bad" side of town. The town is "bad" wherever a person resides, therefore it is not a location that determines "bad" people but it is their inherent nature. So then, if it is our nature that defines our failures to what purpose does it serve to marginalize people for their location rather than their condition? And by act of marginalizing people as a result of their location I am, in effect, becoming the very "bad" person I am warning others to avoid. It is not by love through grace and mercy I have received in my life to call somebody "bad," but it is out of my own pride of thinking I have it together more than they do. But do I really have it more together because I was born or grew up in a less controversial location?

We cannot choose where we are born or to what past we must inherent, so I cannot devalue a person by their circumstance or at all really if I must hold myself to the integrity that I am by no act of my own better than them. Therefore, because I am no greater than them, why plead to my friends and family to avoid these locations? I will discuss the probability of the risk of physical danger in my practical approach, but as a personal perspective on this matter, I cannot say there is one more "bad" area than the next.

If you have to be cautions of physical harm that can come to you and your family, it may be best to approach all locations with the sense that someone can inflict harm on you. But if you are like me and you have been given freedom of fear, you don't have to worry about there being a "bad" side of a town. You will see people broken by oppression in need of the love and freedom you and I possess. May you then, like my new philosophy, view a person not by their location and the possible risk of danger that has corrupted their area, but may you view them as real people subject to unfavorable circumstances. Only then will you see that it is not a "bad" location made up of "bad" people that you should warn your friends and family to avoid, but rather real people who have been marginalized by our judgmental mindset and subconscious actions that you should encourage your friends and family to share life with.

Thank you for reading! I hope you got something out of this and want to come back for more. Now go into the downtown of your city and befriend somebody you can do life with!