Key Takeaways
- Hundreds of young women answered modeling ads and were deceived, pressured, and filmed under false promises their videos would never go online.
- Their footage was uploaded, monetized, and viewed millions of times under the GirlsDoPorn brand.
- Courts later ruled the operation a sex trafficking scheme, leading to multiple convictions, including a 27-year sentence and $75M+ in restitution.
- Many survivors still face harassment, exposure, and long-term trauma years later
Her mom told her to look on Craigslist for a modeling gig. Her cousin had seen lots of success getting booked there.
With the Craigslist killer in the back of her mind, she found a modeling ad that seemed legit. Beachfront, no nudity needed.
After speaking with a reference model who assured her the shoot was legit and the money was real, she headed to the Hilton hotel. She told herself she could leave if things got weird.
The guy who met her in the hotel lobby was small—cargo shorts, casual, unthreatening. She remembers thinking, If I have to, I can push him and run. He constantly assured her, “This is professional.”
She imagined a beachfront photoshoot as advertised, maybe modeling sunglasses or spray tans. But when they reached the hotel room, the door was already cracked open no sign of any beachfront shoot.
He stepped behind her, placing a hand on her back. Through the gap, she saw a tall man inside, and the energy shifted.
“It’s better if you just walk in and I explain, ” the man in cargo shorts said.
She froze.
Inside, six bright lights were aimed at a bed.
“I remember looking at the window,” she later said. “At the loading dock… and I just completely dissociated.”
She was 19.
Fawning to survive, they told her the video would never be online. Only DVDs. Private distribution. Wealthy buyers overseas. Then handed her the envelope of cash. At that point, survival mode took over. If she could just get through it, they would let her leave. She could eat, get gas, and find somewhere safe to sleep.
She didn’t feel like she had a choice.
“You can’t understand what your brain will do when you’re that scared,” she said.
What followed wasn’t a modeling job. It wasn’t what she agreed to. It was sex trafficking.
And her trauma became part of one of the most widely viewed “amateur” porn brands on the internet. And she was far from the only one.
The GirlsDoPorn Case
For years, GirlsDoPorn sold a fantasy to viewers and a lie to young women.
Online, the brand was marketed as “amateur.” The appeal was built around first-timers, supposed authenticity, and the voyeuristic promise that the person on screen was just an ordinary young woman making one private, limited video.
In reality, federal prosecutors, civil courts, survivor testimony, and later criminal convictions described something else entirely: a sprawling trafficking scheme that recruited women through deception, pressured them into filming, uploaded the footage online despite explicit promises that it would stay offline, and left survivors to spend years trying to reclaim their names, their safety, and their futures.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, September 8; Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.dCopy .
What made the GirlsDoPorn case so important was not only the scale of the abuse, but the clarity with which it exposed how coercion can be hidden behind mainstream porn’s most marketable labels.
By the time the criminal case was fully sentenced, seven charged defendants had been punished, hundreds of victims had been recognized by the government, and a federal court had ordered more than $75.5 million in restitution from GirlsDoPorn owner Michael Pratt alone.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2026, January 30; Order of Restitution, United States v. Pratt, No. 19CR4488-JLS, 2026, February 12Copy
Before the lawsuits: How the operation worked
According to court filings, plea agreements, and survivor testimony, the core GirlsDoPorn conspiracy operated from roughly 2012 to 2019, though some participants’ conduct stretched earlier, and the website itself had roots before that period.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; Courthouse News Service, 2026, FebruaryCopy
Michael Pratt created and ran GirlsDoPorn and its sister site GirlsDoToys, while Matthew Wolfe handled broad operational responsibilities, Ruben Andre Garcia acted as a recruiter and male performer, Theodore Gyi worked as a cameraman, Valorie Moser worked in the office, and Douglas Wiederhold performed in early videos and helped lie to women on set.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2026, January 30Copy
The recruitment pattern repeated itself with devastating consistency. Women responded to online ads for modeling jobs, often for clothed modeling. They were told the work would be private, anonymous, and never released online or in the United States.
In many cases, once they arrived, they were then told the new content they were being coerced into doing would only be sold on DVD to a private collector overseas.
Survivors then said the situation changed: the shoots went much longer than promised, pressure escalated, threats of lawsuits or canceled flights were used, and in some cases, women were not allowed to leave until filming was completed.Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, September 8Copy
The business model depended on the lie.
Prosecutors said GirlsDoPorn content was promoted on free porn sites such as Pornhub to drive traffic to the subscription sites, and Wolfe’s sentencing memo stated the enterprise generated more than $17 million in revenue.
Pratt’s 2025 plea filing similarly said the sites received millions of views and generated millions of dollars while women were being told their videos would remain effectively unseen.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2021, December 15Copy
June 2, 2016: The civil case begins
The public legal story started in civil court. On June 2, 2016, the San Diego Superior Court filed the fraud case Doe v. GirlsDoPorn.com as Case No. 37-2016-00019027-CU-FR-CTL.Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 2016Copy That filing date matters, because it shows the case did not appear overnight. Survivors were already fighting back years before the criminal prosecution was complete.
The civil suit eventually grew to include 22 Jane Does, along with named plaintiffs, and it alleged intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, misappropriation of name and likeness, and deceptive business practices.
Sanford Heisler, one of the firms representing the women, later summarized the case by saying the plaintiffs had been “conned” into videos after being lured by fake modeling ads and false guarantees of anonymity and non-Internet distribution.Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.Copy
That early filing is one of the most important points in the whole timeline, because it put survivors—not law enforcement, not the platforms, not the industry—at the center of the first major push for accountability.
August 19, 2019: The trial begins
After years of litigation and delay, the civil bench trial began in August 2019.
Sanford Heisler’s case page identifies August 19, 2019, as the publicly tracked start date in its case materials, and Courthouse News described the trial as a monthslong proceeding that drew international attention.Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.; Courthouse News Service, 2020, January 2Copy
During that trial, survivor after survivor described nearly identical representations.
They said they were told their names would never be connected to the videos, that the videos were for foreign DVD sales, and that they would not be posted online. Judge Kevin Enright later found that these shared stories were not a coincidence, but evidence of a business model built on repeated deception.Courthouse News Service, 2020, January 2; Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.Copy
One especially chilling detail from the civil trial was that GirlsDoPorn allegedly kept operating even while the trial was underway.
Courthouse News reported that a new video was uploaded during the trial, and one woman testified that she had not even been told about the lawsuit when she filmed in August 2019.
October 10, 2019: Federal sex-trafficking charges are unsealed
On October 10, 2019, while the civil trial was still underway, federal prosecutors unsealed a criminal indictment against key GirlsDoPorn operators. On October 10, 2019, the defendants were criminally indicted, and Courthouse News reported that the owner and operators were charged amid the ongoing civil fraud trial.Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.; Courthouse News Service, 2019, October 10Copy
That criminal filing transformed the case. What survivors had described for years as coercion and deceit was now being pursued by the federal government as sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion.
Later DOJ releases would repeatedly summarize the same core allegation: women were deceived and coerced into appearing in pornographic videos that were then posted online without the consent they had been led to believe they were giving.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5Copy
January 2, 2020: The Jane Does win nearly $13 million
On January 2, 2020, Judge Kevin Enright ruled for the 22 Jane Does. He awarded nearly $13 million in compensatory and punitive damages and ordered the defendants to remove the plaintiffs’ videos and stop distributing them.
Courthouse News reported that Enright found “clear and convincing evidence” of malice, oppression, or fraud. He wrote that defendants’ tactics caused the videos to become common knowledge in the women’s communities and among their peers and relatives—the very outcome the women had feared and that the defendants had explicitly promised would never happen.
The judge wrote that the plaintiffs had suffered “far-reaching and often tragic consequences,” including harassment, psychological trauma, reputational harm, lost jobs, academic and professional opportunities, broken relationships, and, for several plaintiffs, suicidal ideation.
That ruling remains one of the clearest judicial statements in the record about the human cost of the scheme. It was not framed as a misunderstanding. It was framed as fraud.
2020 into 2021: Survivors keep fighting while the criminal case expands
The civil victory did not stop the harm.
Survivors still had to deal with endless reposts, identification, harassment, and the impossibility of fully erasing internet circulation.
In a Consider Before Consuming podcast interview, a GirlsDoPorn survivor, Jane Doe, described looking back at the video and seeing the fear in her own face.
“I didn’t know if they were going to kill me. Watching the video now, I can see it in my eyes. The quivering of my lips and my voice, I know exactly how I was feeling in that moment,” she says.
She captures one of the case’s central deceptions: viewers saw “consent,” but the woman onscreen says it was actually terror.
June 14, 2021: Ruben Andre Garcia is sentenced to 20 years
Ruben Andre Garcia, the recruiter, the man onscreen, and one of the most visible faces of the scheme, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on June 14, 2021.
The Courthouse News reported that nearly two dozen young women faced Garcia in court and described the collective trauma they suffered at his hands.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; Courthouse News Service, 2021Copy
Garcia’s sentencing was one of the first major criminal accountability moments in the case. The women’s statements made clear that for many survivors, Garcia was not a distant executive figure. He was the person they met, trusted, feared, and remembered.
December 15, 2021: The court gives victims rights to their images and orders $18 million in restitution in Garcia’s case
On December 15, 2021, U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino ruled that all rights to GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys videos and images would be awarded to the hundreds of victims featured in them.
As part of the same restitution order in Garcia’s case, she ordered Garcia to pay roughly $18 million in restitution.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2021, December 15Copy
The order voided the supposed releases and contracts on which the operation had relied. It also declared that any purported transfer or licensing of the women’s images to third parties was void.
That ruling gave survivors back some control over material taken from them through fraud and coercion.
This was a crucial legal milestone because it recognized that the “paperwork” GirlsDoPorn used to defend itself did not reflect meaningful, informed, lawful consent.
July 26, 2022: Matthew Wolfe pleads guilty
Matthew Wolfe pleaded guilty on July 26, 2022, to conspiracy in the federal case.
In his plea, later summarized by the DOJ, Wolfe admitted that he had a “wide range of responsibilities,” including filming approximately 100 videos, uploading finished videos to the internet, overseeing the books, and operating business entities used to promote the business. He worked for GirlsDoPorn from 2011 until his October 2019 arrest.
Prosecutors described Wolfe as central to day-to-day operations. He also admitted to persuading women to appear in the videos by telling them the footage would never be posted online and would never be released in the United States, representations he knew were false.
November 9, 2022: Cameraman Theodore Gyi is sentenced to 4 years
Theodore Gyi, the cameraman on hundreds of GirlsDoPorn shoots, was sentenced to four years in prison on November 9, 2022.
DOJ later repeated that date in subsequent press releases, and Wolfe’s sentencing release said Wolfe had instructed Gyi to lie to women if they asked whether the videos would be posted online.
That detail strips away the idea that deception was accidental or improvised. According to federal prosecutors, employees were instructed in advance to repeat the same false reassurance.
December 21, 2022: Michael Pratt Runs and is arrested in Madrid
Michael Pratt fled the United States in mid-2019.
For more than three years, he remained an international fugitive. The FBI said he was arrested by Spanish National Police in Madrid on December 21, 2022, after being placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list earlier that year.Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2022; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19Copy
Pratt’s flight mattered symbolically and legally. It reinforced prosecutors’ portrayal of him as the architect of the operation and delayed the final phase of accountability for survivors who had already been waiting years.
March 19, 2024: Pratt is extradited; Wolfe is sentenced the same day
March 19, 2024, was one of the most remarkable dates in the entire case.
Pratt was extradited from Spain and made his first appearance in federal court in San Diego, entering a not-guilty plea that day. Also on March 19, 2024, Wolfe was sentenced to 14 years in prison.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19Copy
DOJ’s Wolfe release is especially revealing because it includes a compact description of the whole scheme.
Prosecutors said victims were recruited from across the United States and Canada through internet ads for clothed modeling jobs, told the videos would never be posted online, filmed in San Diego hotels and short-term rentals, threatened with lawsuits or canceled flights if they refused to finish, and later exposed through Pornhub clips designed to drive traffic to the full videos on GirlsDoPorn.
Roughly 30 survivors addressed the court during Wolfe’s sentencing proceedings in January and March 2024, according to DOJ.
Many had been college students at the time and described flying to San Diego for what they thought were legitimate modeling gigs, only to be forced to perform sexual acts on camera.
June 5, 2025: Pratt pleads guilty
On June 5, 2025, Michael Pratt pleaded guilty in federal court. DOJ said he pleaded guilty to Count One, conspiracy to sex traffic from 2012 to 2019, and Count Two, the sex trafficking of Victim 1 in May 2012. In that plea, Pratt admitted he created the site, recruited women, sometimes transported them, sometimes filmed them, and managed the business.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5)Copy
His plea also formally tied together several facts that survivors had been saying for years: that GirlsDoPorn and GirlsDoToys operated as a single business venture; that content was posted on Pornhub and similar sites to promote the subscription business; and that the enterprise depended on deceiving women about internet distribution.
September 8, 2025: Pratt is sentenced to 27 years
On September 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino sentenced Pratt to 27 years in prison. DOJ’s release from that day is one of the most powerful public records in the case because it centers on survivor testimony rather than only procedural facts.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, September 8Copy
According to the DOJ, 40 women urged the court to impose the maximum sentence.
Survivors described being exploited, coerced, raped, abused, and trapped in San Diego hotel rooms. Many described years of suicide attempts, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, lost jobs, broken relationships, stalking, harassment, and shame. Several had changed their names. Some had cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance. One woman said she drank wine for breakfast just to make it to court.
Some of the statements recorded by DOJ are unforgettable.
“Pratt has caused me to fear my own name,” a GirlsDoPorn survivor.
“The life I was meant to have died in that hotel room,” another GirlsDoPorn survivor.
“I am not your victim. I’m your reckoning … I am the girl who took you down,” 21-year old survivor.
“You are evil. You are a predator. You are a rapist,” 19-year old survivor.
Those are not side details. They are the heart of the case.
December 2025: Valorie Moser is sentenced
Valorie Moser, who had worked in the office and pleaded guilty to conspiracy, was sentenced to two years in federal prison in December 2025.
An Impact Statement to the court showed Moser’s involvement.
“Valorie Moser was the one who picked me up and drove me to the hotel where I was trafficked. Her role was to make me feel more comfortable because women trust other women. She reassured me on the way to the hotel that everything would be OK.”
“Later that night, they opened my hotel room door, and this nightmare began,” she continued. “She wasn’t just a bookkeeper; she was a willing participant. She deserves to be sentenced to jail.”
January 30, 2026: Douglas Wiederhold becomes the final sentenced defendant
On January 30, 2026, Douglas Wiederhold, an early male participant in the conspiracy and its assistant, was sentenced to four years in prison.
DOJ said he was the last of seven charged defendants to be sentenced. He was paid to perform in 71 videos and was part of the conspiracy at least from January 2011 through March 2012.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2026, January 30Copy
The release is especially damning because it says Wiederhold knowingly lied directly to women on Pratt’s instructions, assuring them the videos would not be posted online and would instead go to a collector overseas or a small VHS audience in Australia, even though he knew Pratt made money by posting the videos publicly on GirlsDoPorn.
Courthouse News reported that at this sentencing, one woman told Wiederhold, “I have lived in survival mode since 2011, while you have lived your life free from consequences. It’s time for accountability.”
February 12, 2026: Pratt is ordered to pay $75 million in restitution
On February 12, 2026, a federal restitution order required Pratt to pay $75,568,283.47.
The publicly available court order states that $58,645,485.47 was to be paid to 106 victims, with additional sums paid on a pro rata basis to categories of victims and compensation providers.Order of Restitution, United States v. Pratt, No. 19CR4488-JLS, 2026, February 12Copy (courthousenews.com)
That number is staggering, but so is what it implies: the court quantified the lifelong harm of the scheme as extending far beyond the original payments women were lured with. The order also reflects the government’s recognition that the victim count exceeded the original 22 women in the civil case.
Who was involved
The core defendants publicly identified in the criminal case were Michael Pratt, the founder and owner; Matthew Wolfe, Pratt’s friend and business partner who managed operations, filming, financials, and uploading; Ruben Andre Garcia, the recruiter and male performer; Theodore Gyi, the cameraman; Valorie Moser, the office manager or administrative assistant; and Douglas Wiederhold, an early male performer who helped carry out on-set deception.
DOJ also identified GirlsDoToys as part of the same business venture and described shared staff, infrastructure, and promotion.U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2026, January 30Copy
The legal record also repeatedly references “reference girls,” shell companies, office staff, and other helpers who made the deception look credible. Sanford Heisler’s case summary says the operation used fake references—women who lied to targets and told them no one had found out about their own videos—in order to lower resistance and create trust.
What survivors have publicly said happened to them
Across the civil case, criminal proceedings, FTND survivor accounts, and later reporting, several themes appear again and again.
Women said they answered modeling ads because they needed money for rent, school, or basic survival. Some were college students. Some were very young adults making practical decisions under financial pressure.
Many later said they were prevented from reading contracts, rushed through paperwork, pressured to continue after expressing hesitation, or threatened with lawsuits, canceled flights, or exposure if they stopped.Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP, n.d.; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2024, March 19; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, September 8Copy
Survivors also described the aftermath in devastatingly similar terms. They lost jobs. They left school. They were harassed by strangers. Their videos were sent to friends, family, classmates, and coworkers. Some changed their names. Some changed their appearance. Some developed substance-use problems. Some experienced years of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts.
That continuity across sources is one reason the case had such force. The damage was not abstract. It was social, economic, psychological, and ongoing.
Where GirlsDoPorn survivors are today
There is no responsible way to say where every survivor is today, because many have intentionally reclaimed privacy, changed their names, or stayed out of public view. What is publicly documented is more limited, but still important.
Some survivors continue to speak publicly. We’ve been privileged at Fight the New Drug to speak with two survivors. Two incredibly brave women who want the truth to be known and prevent others from suffering the same way they did. If you haven’t heard their stories, check them out on YouTube.
At the same time, the DOJ’s September 8, 2025, sentencing release makes clear that many survivors are still living with profound consequences. The government said women testified about years of suicide attempts, depression, anxiety, PTSD, name changes, stalking, harassment, lost work, and broken relationships. Much of the survivors’ content is still online, and their trauma continues.
Publicly, the record shows a mix of courageous advocacy, ongoing trauma, and years-long efforts to regain control over identities, images, and videos stolen from them.
Evidence shows that survivors continue to be revictimized by the internet itself.
In June 2024, WIRED reported that deepfake creators were using original GirlsDoPorn footage as source material for AI-manipulated explicit videos, meaning survivors whose abuse had already been litigated and recognized in court were being exploited again in a new technological form. WIRED also reported that Charles DeBarber, who has worked for years to remove GirlsDoPorn content from the web, said his efforts had helped remove footage for around 60 survivors, underscoring how difficult and labor-intensive digital recovery still is.
So the most honest answer to where survivors are today is this: some survivors are now advocates, some have won major legal victories, and many are still dealing with the fallout. The legal system has recognized the harm, but it has not erased it.
Why the GirlsDoPorn case still matters
The GirlsDoPorn case shattered one of the porn industry’s favorite defenses: the idea that if a video exists, everybody involved must have consented to its production and distribution in a meaningful way.
What the record actually shows is a pipeline of false ads, manipulated trust, fraudulent promises, economic pressure, on-set intimidation, online publication, mass exposure, and years of aftermath.
That is why the case continues to matter—not only because the defendants were sentenced, but because the facts forced courts and the public to confront how exploitation can be hidden inside content marketed as “amateur,” “authentic,” or “just entertainment.”
And even now, years after the first lawsuit was filed, the final lesson is still the same: the deepest truth of the GirlsDoPorn case came from survivors who refused to disappear.
They told the court what happened.
They won in civil court.
They helped build the criminal case.
They stood up at sentencings.
They kept speaking even after the internet kept trying to turn their trauma into content.
And because they did, one of the most notorious porn operations of the last decade is no longer remembered as “amateur.”
It is remembered for what courts and prosecutors said it was: a sex-trafficking conspiracy carried out through force, fraud, and coercion.(U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2026, January 30; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of California, 2025, June 5Copy
Your Support Matters Now More Than Ever
Most kids today are exposed to porn by the age of 12. By the time they’re teenagers, 75% of boys and 70% of girls have already viewed itRobb, M.B., & Mann, S. (2023). Teens and pornography. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense.Copy —often before they’ve had a single healthy conversation about it.
Even more concerning: over half of boys and nearly 40% of girls believe porn is a realistic depiction of sexMartellozzo, E., Monaghan, A., Adler, J. R., Davidson, J., Leyva, R., & Horvath, M. A. H. (2016). “I wasn’t sure it was normal to watch it”: A quantitative and qualitative examination of the impact of online pornography on the values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of children and young people. Middlesex University, NSPCC, & Office of the Children’s Commissioner.Copy . And among teens who have seen porn, more than 79% of teens use it to learn how to have sexRobb, M.B., & Mann, S. (2023). Teens and pornography. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense.Copy . That means millions of young people are getting sex ed from violent, degrading content, which becomes their baseline understanding of intimacy. Out of the most popular porn, 33%-88% of videos contain physical aggression and nonconsensual violence-related themesFritz, N., Malic, V., Paul, B., & Zhou, Y. (2020). A descriptive analysis of the types, targets, and relative frequency of aggression in mainstream pornography. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(8), 3041-3053. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01773-0Copy Bridges et al., 2010, “Aggression and Sexual Behavior in Best-Selling Pornography Videos: A Content Analysis,” Violence Against Women.Copy .
From increasing rates of loneliness, depression, and self-doubt, to distorted views of sex, reduced relationship satisfaction, and riskier sexual behavior among teens, porn is impacting individuals, relationships, and society worldwideFight the New Drug. (2024, May). Get the Facts (Series of web articles). Fight the New Drug.Copy .
This is why Fight the New Drug exists—but we can’t do it without you.
Your donation directly fuels the creation of new educational resources, including our awareness-raising videos, podcasts, research-driven articles, engaging school presentations, and digital tools that reach youth where they are: online and in school. It equips individuals, parents, educators, and youth with trustworthy resources to start the conversation.
Will you join us? We’re grateful for whatever you can give—but a recurring donation makes the biggest difference. Every dollar directly supports our vital work, and every individual we reach decreases sexual exploitation. Let’s fight for real love:
