If that was actually the intent they could have avoided all the drama by adding broader language to the entire document allowing exceptions on a case by case basis for prohibited behaviors which occurred while the applicant was a victim of trafficking and coercion. This sounds a lot more like an excuse made after the fact to defend an indefensible decision.

I really hope someone in congress follows up on this and demands to know how many agents were hired with these behaviors on their record, and of those how many had been identified as victims of trafficking. Make them go on record with it.

I'm skeptical about the phrasing "engaged in prostitution", I think the beastiality bit is a smokescreen to distract from that part. I don't think the fbi has had to turn down a lot of former hookers, I think they've had to turn down lot of men who have "engaged with prostitutes" from the other end of the transaction. They are removing this restriction so they can hire more sexual predators.

(inb4 "not all men who hire prostitutes are sexual predators". I know. I'm a sex worker. The ones Donald Trump and Kash Patel want to hire are going to be sexual predators).

Uhh...who exactly are the "victims" in a bestiality incident? 🤨

Where do you think medieval peasants came from? Just sprouted from the ground?

I have a feeling that medieval peasants had a fairly good grasp of sex, seeing how they raised animals and all. They knew.

They grew up in one room houses...