I'm Confused: Sex Trafficking Or Prostitution Or Entrepeneurs?

[AtYourCervix10]

So, i watched a recent PBS Frontline documentary on "sex trafficking." Sex trafficking to me, was a term i heard bandied about in the media, but assumed it was some kind of new crime on the scene where women were being victimized overseas.

Apparently "sex trafficking" is just prostitution re-named. They also call the women who engage in prostitution - "victims." (not hookers) And the men who pay the "victims", are now labeled "predators/criminals."/not "johns."

Is anyone aware of this? I found it mind blowing. To me, that's like saying, we're going to suddenly call baseball, "ball traffic." And the visiting team will be called "the predators/criminals" and the home team will now be called "the victims."

The documentary follows police sting operations in Arizona...and it was compelling in that, TO ME... the men seemed to be the "victims". Cops would basically go online, facebook, backpage, dating apps, you name it... and solicit unsuspecting men for sex by posting fake naked pictures of girls and then posing as girls online and on the phone. It looked more like entrapment to me. They would then lure the men for sex into a hotel room and then bust them and take them to jail.

I guess it's just me and i'm pretty confused, because further in this NYTimes article women now want the freedom and it's their right, to be able to engage in legal prostitution and do whatever they want with their bodies. Basically, this article posits the decriminalization of prostitution. That once like marijuana, prostitution would no longer be a crime.

Could Prostitution Be Next to Be Decriminalized?

So if prostitution is no longer a crime --- are women who get paid to have sex still "victims?"

I'm confused. what is it? are men criminals? are women victims? or are these "victims" just capitalist free market entrepreneurs?

 

[RobertHunter30]

I don't have an answer - but wanted to say this is quite a good post - thoughtful - and because it is something I have not thought of myself - I don't have an answer, They only thing I knew was that it was not just happening overseas - it was happening here, but what I envisioned is more of what you envisioned. Thanks for posting this.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

Hey Robert, thank you for your thoughtful response. You took my post how it was intended, to be insightful, thought provoking and seeking some kind of larger truth and reflection about where we are with sexuality and awareness in today's society. in my mind, this touches on some very deep truths and issues that extend beyond main stream media, society and the laws that govern us, and what is deemed right, or wrong, and by who? and why?

I mean, as the article suggests, this is humankind's "oldest profession." And why is that? what does it say about the needs of men and women and our relationships with each other.

Further, the future, there is also a lot of news about futuristic sex dolls and brothels. Where i guess men can order life like dolls to be their companions. I'm not judging, merely observing. Why is that such a big burgeoning industry? What does that say about where we are in our relationships between men and women and society as a whole?

Here is a link to the PBS Frontline Documentary:

Sex Trafficking in America | Season 37 Episode 15 | FRONTLINE

I have to also add, and i confess ignorance, in the documentary, they show women walking the streets freely, yet they complain about being forced and trapped and scared. There isn't a day that goes by where I'm not scared. I get scared when I pull out into traffic every day and merge onto a freeway. I also know that if I'm in a situation,that i am uncomfortable with, i walk away, move on, go someplace else. I also seek help if i need it. Yet these victims somehow feel trapped and forced to walk the streets? After watching the doc, it just doesn't quite add up to me. But clearly i am missing something.

I guess adding to that confusion, there are clear messages that are being sent out by media or someone that these women are victims, yet the NYT article suggests women WANT to do this and that is their god given right to be a sex worker, and that THEY are being victimized by the Law. In both scenarios, women are the victims it seems?

I don't have an answer - but wanted to say this is quite a good post - thoughtful - and because it is something I have not thought of myself - I don't have an answer, They only thing I knew was that it was not just happening overseas - it was happening here, but what I envisioned is more of what you envisioned. Thanks for posting this.

 

[RobertHunter30]

Thanks for the link - I will watch it over the weekend - I do appreciate what you have written so I am anxious now to watch the documentary! Thanks!

 

[AtYourCervix10]

cool. I welcome your thoughts feedback and discourse.

Thanks for the link - I will watch it over the weekend - I do appreciate what you have written so I am anxious now to watch the documentary! Thanks!

 

[marriedasian]

here's my take...

sex trafficking = this is where girls are forced into having sex with clients against their will because they don't have any other outlets. pretty much sex slaves who have to fuck anyone who is willing to pay or is given to.

prostitution = this is where a transaction is made wherein something of value is traded for sex by either parties of men and women for the other. whether or not this is legal depends on local laws.

entrepreneurs = this is where the "escorts" exist. you are paying for the escort's time and the service is companionship. sex is not implied but not excluded. i know, i know, it's a grey area and a loop hole but paying for someone's time technically isn't illegal. it's almost the same as a plumber charging you $100/hour to do whatever you want for an hour's worth of time. you could have a plumber come over and pay him/her $100 to just sit on the couch and that would be fine. it's really more about the time than the service, per se.

as for other parts of the OP's debate items...

police sting = i think this depends on locality and laws. if where these stings were happening is illegal to solicit sex, then what the police are doing is not entrapment (in my opinion). if it's illegal, then the police has to enforce the law and try to catch people who are breaking the law. you could argue that speeding tickets are entrapment too if you want to look at it that way. i mean a police officer could just sit on the side of the highway and shoot his laser gun at oncoming cars all day and catch illegal speeders. pretty much the same as police concept as police officer is setting up a "sting" to catch speeders. i mean, how else would he catch anyone breaking the law of speeding? same goes for the people who solicit sex illegally... how would you catch them otherwise?

women and owning their bodies = i have no issues with this however when laws are created they have to engage the entire mass and not just the few. i'm sure there are many women out there who would love to sell their bodies for money and probably be very good at it too, plus be able to make a living from it however there are so many liabilities and other dangers from it that as a lawmaker, you have no choice but to err on the side of caution. every thing in life is a double-edged sword and if the bad outweighs the good then you just don't do it. i think in this case, legalizing prostitution would do the public more harm than good. also, quite honestly, i don't think society is mature enough to handle that. can you imagine a brothel in every city? i can just see the shit storms of politics on a daily basis, haha.

and as a final conclusion...

there's no way that one-hour episode can cover the entirety of of either sex trafficking, prostition, and/or the entrepreneurship around that... there just isn't enough time and empirical data to support much of those claims. it's just a tv show for entertainment and education (or maybe just awareness). there's so much that happens in the shadows that we turn a blind-eye to every day. the truth, in my opinion, is that nobody really cares and just wants to go about their merry lives living whatever fantasy they built up or was taught and be ignorant of anything else... after all, ignorance is bliss.

the OP's question is very real and the reality of it truely exists however i don't think the average cares or is even aware.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I think the "sex trafficking" moniker is a way to maintain a stigma over what should be an objectively benign transaction..now it also too covers the parties involved, that profit from the transaction without actually providing any sex work, such as a pimp, madam, etc...
It's the last valid societal argument against legalisation of sex work that then gets over used, to avoid having to face certain uncomfortable and disadvantageous realizations that would come with legal sex work... Hence why such a term only comes in play with female sex workers or male johns/pimps...have never ever heard a gigalo referred to as "sex trafficked", nor have I ever heard of a madam or female pimp referred to as a sex trafficker unless her employees are female or underage males.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

Agreed. yes, thank you all. "Sex Trafficking" seems to be a one size fits all phrase that seems to re-label the situation in a more politically correct frame?

I guess the point i was making is it's the same thing, but it's been "branded" differently. It's no longer "prostitution" which i guess implies that it is placing blame on women/ie Prostitutes?

I guess it's interesting to me that this kind of slid under the radar to me. it was a term that just appeared and I accepted without close examination like "debt ceiling" -- it's just something that showed up in the zeitgeist. But i'm curious who coined it. Police? Government? media? Just interesting.

 

[1222288]

but assumed it was some kind of new crime on the scene where women were being victimized overseas.

Apparently "sex trafficking" is just prostitution re-named.

Think of drug trafficking. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry run by organized crime. Now, imagine instead of drugs, it was adults and children. Sex slavery is a term that is also used. They are humans that are gathered, forced into labor against their will, transported around like cattle, and exploited. It is also a multi-billion dollar industry.

The difference between human trafficking and prostitution, is that prostitution is voluntary, rather than being coerced or tricked.

 

[Acratopotes]

Clearly prostitution shares some features of any other job. People can go it alone or be managed by someone else. Managers or agents can be over-controlling or reasonable. People can be fairly compensated or exploited.

What's different about sex work is that it is usually illegal and maybe because of that, or because of other values, it is assumed that most people who engage in it are doing so from desperation. Often that is true, sometimes it may not be.

I am not sure you could call prostitutes victims of their customers. They might be victims or their pimps, their circumstances or in some cases of their drug dealers.

 

[deleted1027653]

The big question is why? After that it’s all rationalization.

 

[ohiorod]

When one engages the services of a prostitute, here is what one frequently doesn’t know and yes this is happening in the wonderful nation of the USA.

So, one pays the prostitute and here is what sometimes happens. The woman may get to keep $0 of the payment. Why? Because someone currently owns her. Perhaps she came to your city from somewhere else in the USA or from anywhere around the world. She has to work off the debt of being transported and housed and fed. Those costs will always exceed the amount she or he makes per month, so her debt gets worse. Sure she walks the street and looks quite free. If she doesn’t aggressively sell the body, she may be beaten to within an inch of her life. She may be addicted to drugs because the owner got her hooked and of course, she has to work harder to please her owner to get the next fix. She will use a phone only when allowed.A step out of line merits a beating or denial of drugs. The seemingly content hooker will be transported where business is good, where the owner wants you and will be housed in the not so nice hotels.
Now, imagine that is your sister or your daughter or son. When the owner tires of you , he will sell you to someone else and your debt will start again.

Other than that, it can be a pretty harmless job. And the Johns who have created the market for the owners to flourish, certainly aren’t responsible for the broken ribs, bruises, drug overdoses and broken souls.

If a woman freely chooses to prostitute her body and keeps her profits, that is up to her. But sex trafficking is not victimless when you start talking about someone owning young women or men, basically imprisoning them and controlling their activities and movements.

That is my two cents. And for the record, I am a fairly liberal gay man who believes strongly in a woman ‘s right to choose and her right not to be owned.

 

[twoton]

I think there’s a sense that if prostitution is legal there won’t be any more trafficking because it will be a regulated industry. It will work just like the pharmaceutical sector. Painkillers are legal and we don’t have a black market for OxyContin.

 

[ohiorod]

I think there’s a sense that if prostitution is legal there won’t be any more trafficking because it will be a regulated industry. It will work just like the pharmaceutical sector. Painkillers are legal and we don’t have a black market for OxyContin.

Seriously, you actually believe that OxyContin is not sold illegally ? 10 mg sells for $10, 20 mg sells for $20, etc. There is huge market for the drug!

 

[twoton]

Seriously, you actually believe that OxyContin is not sold illegally ? 10 mg sells for $10, 20 mg sells for $20, etc. There is huge market for the drug!

I was being sarcastic.

 

[midwestrob]

T

I think there’s a sense that if prostitution is legal there won’t be any more trafficking because it will be a regulated industry. It will work just like the pharmaceutical sector. Painkillers are legal and we don’t have a black market for OxyContin.

Meant sarcastically or not, this is not an apt analogy. If you don’t have a prescription, then buying painkillers IS illegal. So there will always be a black market for such pharmaceuticals because a lot of people will not have the prescriptions.

Legalizing prostitution may not be a panacea, but I assume if prostitution is legalized, all persons of legal age and able to consent to sex would be able to hire a prostitute.

 

[twoton]

Yeah, I was trying to think of an analogy and that was the best I could come up with. Basically, it's a stupid idea that legalized prostitution will end sex slavery.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

well it seems that prostitution = sex trafficking.

 

[Sagittarius84]

When one engages the services of a prostitute, here is what one frequently doesn’t know and yes this is happening in the wonderful nation of the USA.

So, one pays the prostitute and here is what sometimes happens. The woman may get to keep $0 of the payment. Why? Because someone currently owns her. Perhaps she came to your city from somewhere else in the USA or from anywhere around the world. She has to work off the debt of being transported and housed and fed. Those costs will always exceed the amount she or he makes per month, so her debt gets worse. Sure she walks the street and looks quite free. If she doesn’t aggressively sell the body, she may be beaten to within an inch of her life. She may be addicted to drugs because the owner got her hooked and of course, she has to work harder to please her owner to get the next fix. She will use a phone only when allowed.A step out of line merits a beating or denial of drugs. The seemingly content hooker will be transported where business is good, where the owner wants you and will be housed in the not so nice hotels.
Now, imagine that is your sister or your daughter or son. When the owner tires of you , he will sell you to someone else and your debt will start again.

Other than that, it can be a pretty harmless job. And the Johns who have created the market for the owners to flourish, certainly aren’t responsible for the broken ribs, bruises, drug overdoses and broken souls.

If a woman freely chooses to prostitute her body and keeps her profits, that is up to her. But sex trafficking is not victimless when you start talking about someone owning young women or men, basically imprisoning them and controlling their activities and movements.

That is my two cents. And for the record, I am a fairly liberal gay man who believes strongly in a woman ‘s right to choose and her right not to be owned.

And all of this reigns supreme within sex work, particularly sex work by women provided for men, because the idiotic illegalisation of the practice doesn't allow for protective infrastructures and processes to be put in place. The same underlying fears and background issues you point to also existed with illegal marijuana, and we can already see how decriminalization and legalisation are starting to make that a market much less rife with danger for providers and consumers alike.
Your final sentence somewhat reveals the biased way you're coming at this issue, because by in large these are not issues male sex workers that service women have to deal with, partly because of the lessened risk of rape or harm, but largely because they don't carry the same desperate/criminal stigma; the workers or the "janes". Which again hearkens back to still held conceptions of "sexual gatekeeping" as well as sex being used as a reward function for amicable male behaviors.
Women via Backpage, Craigslist, and to a less obvious extent, Instagram have found ways to bypass the trafficking, to eliminate the middle man of a pimp, and yet still find their options stifled and their efforts criminalized.
Trafficking, abuse and drug concerns are convenient, but gender biased scapegoats for what the real issue is: policing the sexuality of women, and keeping a rein on the sexual access of men, to which every other gender expression of "trick" or "john" then gets to suffer in the trickle down.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

well, right. in the new narrative construct as deemed by law enforcement and media, it's no longer "hooker/jane/trick" and "john" -- which may be politically incorrect. it now seems to be "victim" vs "predator."

I guess my question is -- how is a woman who advertises sex on instagram and gets paid hundreds of dollars for an act a "victim"? Are they victims because they choose to make more in an hour than they can make working a minimum wage job for a month?

i would actually posit that if it was legalized then less harm would be done to women, because i would wager that many women who are afraid of being arrested are also afraid to report abuse. If their activity was now considered legal then they could report abuse without fear of being arrested. And this would be more work for law enforcement policing disputes. And would then, strip joints become brothels?

The Frontline doc was alarming in many ways. The police officers were all women and they were "rescuing" victims from the street. I just had a hard time believing these victims who were willfully walking the streets making money were "victims".

In today's #MeToo Pink Hat culture, where every female, wealthy celebrity is wailing about being mistreated on their latest million dollar project, the prevailing winds more than ever, is anti-patriarchy -- there are more women celebrities, congresswomen, presidential candidates, athletes, CEOs than ever -- women have it pretty good. The law, the media, everyone is in their corner.The notion that women are victims really doesn't hold water IMHO anymore.

These women walking the streets could have easily chosen to take a bus and get a job at Wal Mart, IMHO it's an easier job and they can make more money this way. Hardly victims, but more a choice. Yet the Frontline cops were coddling the girls making it know that they were victims for selling their bodies and the men were evil predators who deserved to be in jail.

Frankly, it just didn't add up to me and didn't seem like an honest portrayal of facts and the full story and situation.

I think the Libs have some work to do, in that they need to decide if these women are victims, or like the NYTIMES piece suggests, fully sexually liberated females who can choose to do what they want with their bodies, which means being paid a lot, to do whatever they want with their bodies.

If this were all to become legal, society would have a huge morality crisis in that, hey, its legal to get a hooker, but then do we get to judge you at work for going to a brothel? does the media then become the police for outing people and CEO's for legal, yet immoral behavior?

And all of this reigns supreme within sex work, particularly sex work by women provided for men, because the idiotic illegalisation of the practice doesn't allow for protective infrastructures and processes to be put in place. The same underlying fears and background issues you point to also existed with illegal marijuana, and we can already see how decriminalization and legalisation are starting to make that a market much less rife with danger for providers and consumers alike.
Your final sentence somewhat reveals the biased way you're coming at this issue, because by in large these are not issues male sex workers that service women have to deal with, partly because of the lessened risk of rape or harm, but largely because they don't carry the same desperate/criminal stigma; the workers or the "janes". Which again hearkens back to still held conceptions of "sexual gatekeeping" as well as sex being used as a reward function for amicable male behaviors.
Women via Backpage, Craigslist, and to a less obvious extent, Instagram have found ways to bypass the trafficking, to eliminate the middle man of a pimp, and yet still find their options stifled and their efforts criminalized.
Trafficking, abuse and drug concerns are convenient, but gender biased scapegoats for what the real issue is: policing the sexuality of women, and keeping a rein on the sexual access of men, to which every other gender expression of "trick" or "john" then gets to suffer in the trickle down.