Link #1

Nowhere is it established that any prostitues are addicts, or that any have been sexually abused as children. In fact, the word "addict" doesn't appear, and the only use of the word "sexual" is, "As I mentioned in the last question, there were a number of new justice initiatives including on cyberbullying, on a victims' bill of rights, and on greater sentences for perpetrators of child sexual assaults." How does it feel to get caught bluffing?

Link #2

"The act includes the limitation that 'No funds made available to carry out this Act… may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking' is not proof that more than 50% of prostitutes are addicts and childhood sex abuse survivors. What university allows this form of intellectual dishonesty?

Link #3

"Document not available" is not evidence of anything except your crooked trickery.

Link #5

"Document not available" means "evidence not available.

Link #6

"URL not found." You said you had sources. But you don't.

Link #7

I enjoyed the section on "Femininsm in the 80s" but this article has nothing to do with addiction or childhood sexual abuse. And is specifically says no persuasive data is available.

Link #8

You linked to a blank page.

Link #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22

Abortion clinics? Men's abortion rights? At this point, you have been outed as a liar. I understand you thought you could get away with claiming these were all sources that conclude that more than 50% of prostitutes are drug addicts AND survivors of childhood sexual abuse because you though I wouldn't actually read any of the publications. As is typical of feminazi propagandists, you are a pathetic buffoon and a sleazy liar. You should post this nonsense on Tumblr.