https://exoduscry.com/legalization/ on the bottom of the page is the source and report for which this video was based on.

The paper that they refer to in the conclusion says that the assumption is that human trafficking increases because overall demand increases, but that this cannot be proven because of the difficulty of getting valid statistics. It’s an assumption.

They also state, “The likely negative consequences of legalized prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favor of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking (e.g., Outshoorn, 2005). However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalization of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes – at least those legally employed – if prostitution is legalized. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky “freedom of choice” issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services. A full evaluation of the costs and benefits, as well as of the broader merits of prohibiting prostitution, is beyond the scope of the present article.”

Given this is the paper’s conclusion it seems misleading for that group to cite them in support of not legalizing prostitution.

The site they linked to for brochures further up the thread really creeped me out. So I went digging.

There isn't a single credible source cited for any of the very generic sounding information that's available, and not much of it is available without a pay wall.

It was mostly just advertising paid speaking events and press kits, had paywalls on literature and resources, and plenty of "donate" links. The only thing they offer without a paywall is "life coaching" classes for victims, and they require more personal information than I gave to finance my last car (employer, income, multiple references, etc.) Someone who was just a victim of sex trafficking is supposed to be comfortable giving out every detail of their identity to a stranger!!??

Even then, the form was riddled with asterisks and disclaimers saying that they are not medical professionals, not licensed, shouldn't be used in lieu of proper care and resources, and not liable for... anything.

Charity Navigator has their income at just shy of a half million.

I know it's not cool to call out people who are, "just trying to help", but the best thing I can say about the Rebecca Bender Initiative is that they're misguided and irresponsible. At its worst, we gon' see them on the news soon.

I’m not accusing anybody of anything and I bet they have helped some people...

but combined with the way they describe potential pimps, dancing around legalization and the general framing of the Initiative, it seems like bait for well-meaning middle-class schoolboard moms to feel like they’re changing the world without really doing anything.

they are just plain disgusting

I can't comment on any of the other aspects you've said, but unfortunately nearly all scientific research is behind a paywall. Publically available research published by companies is a lot more likely to have conflicts of interest than this paywalled research, so unfortunately the best quality research is often hidden behind academic journal paywalls.

All in saying is paywall =/= low quality, in fact it's the other way around if that paywall is for academic journals. But it is difficult to gather solid evidence of what causes what for these large societal and policy issues.

yes but to some educating yourself is worth paying a subscription to one or two of the bigger journals that are not just focused on one subject. Otherwise just search because you can find stuff for free or just enroll in a few classes at the local cc and you'll get free access to some. Education takes effort but being stupid does not like people who want everything handed to them and then don't even bother to read posted links like the OP who spreads their info without ever reading it and realizing the studies contradict her.

I totally understand. Research is funded by governments, and for that reason among others it should be open access. Paying for all these papers is also super expensive, even academics never do it; they just use someone's login to a library.

I also agree with doing the work to dig into someone's claims. Most of the time, people have strong beliefs and then look for evidence to support them, unfortunately! And when I say people, I mean all people.

yeah then you'd be wrong making such a generalization, not everyone looks for work that way. Some people don't care about being right or wrong and instead just want something answered regardless of what comes after.

I'm not trying to make a generalization, but everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias, where we process information according to the beliefs we already have. No one is immune to it, is what I mean. It's one of the strongest and most universally used cognitive biases we have, but I'm not trying to be super negative, just share how people actually think and use information.

Unless you have data and studies showing it is inherently present in everyone otherwise you have no place and your statement is worthless.

im not trying to make a generalization.... followed by a generalization..... nice don't bother responding I wont bother reading your response unless it has studies behind it. Not only do you have to show it is present in everyone but that it isn't something someone can be aware of and work around because you already said " Most of the time, people have strong beliefs and then look for evidence to support them, unfortunately! "

Happy to provide the studies. Here they are below. Obviously, they haven't tested everyone in the world, but they have tested enough to generalize. Do you have access to academic studies that are behind a paywall? If not, I can send some to you privately, or show you how to access them through scihub or google scholar.

[This research paper calls confirmation bias a "ubiquitous phenomenon", so it's not only me saying it's universal](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175)

[Different kinds of confirmation bias](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742108603151)

[Another study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335557743000053)

[A review](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368113000028)

[An experiment](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005296023424)

[Another experiment](https://www.jstor.org/stable/248196?casa_token=DqwvfvPHGboAAAAA:5enQyXOx85Ovs2cf9WIjmdkTyJhXRn4t7XYvnLPeWeTCwjReGvHBybHX8dUHHrUrHdUyZOGq3zMktQ7J99E529K1WsHcWtA8mFukOIRMaOR2-qC3Hufhfw&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)

[Yet another experiment](https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/34/6/794/1845405)

[A fourth experiment](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/confirmation-bias-why-psychiatrists-stick-to-wrong-preliminary-diagnoses/C6F1B5201FC56502E3004A18702BAE5D)

[A fifth experiment](https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/isre.2013.0492)

I can continue - let me know.

I should have been more clear. I'm not trying to make a negative statement about all people, which is what I thought you meant by generalization. I am making a statement about how our brains work, though, which is kind of my area of expertise. I'm happy to provide the studies, but if you can't access them or if they're not written in an accessible way (which unfortunately they aren't, as academics don't write clearly for a broad audience), then I don't know how useful that is to you.

your data is wrong and you don't even understand what is in the source as someone else pointed out and as I did yesterday, you literally don't know anything that matters about the subject and yet you are trying to make a change. Not only is some of the information you are posting just outdated and racist, but the studies all either contradict you are say and advocate for legalization with neither being seen as a criminal and that is hard to collect data on whether human trafficking would increase. People like you should only fail when the only thing credible about you is how good at manipulating and pulling at peoples emotions.