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

[fordonfire]

More and more places in Europe are making it illegal to pay for sex but not to sell it. I guess it's an attempt to curtail demand while still "protecting" the more vulnerable person in the equation. So the moral question at hand seems to be, is it really more "wrong" to be the one paying for it, rather than the one selling it? It's really an important question not only because of the ridiculous amount of judgment surrounding the profession in the US but also because there may come a time when automation/tech/offshoring eliminates massive numbers of jobs

 

[Haggard_Wisdom]

Man, i hate to burst your bubble, but WE ARE ALL "SLAVES" AND MIGRANTS. Do you have any idea how hard it is for someone to survive in one of the US metropolitan cities? regardless of ethnicity, gender, etc.

Do you know how expensive it is to live in a metropolitan city in the US?
Have you seen how many Americans are in debt?
Have you read about the homeless epidemic in this country?
Have you read about the Opioid epidemic?
Do you know how expensive health insurance is?
Do you know that pensions are disappearing?

Do you think only migrants are the victims? The "enslaved" ones? The ones trying to survive working 7 days a week???? All these problems listed above are being endured by american citizens of all races colors and genders.

My point is, WE AS HUMAN BEINGS are ALL struggling to survive. If you're not? You're lucky.

I'm a white guy (as you can tell by my pics). According to the mainstream media, my life should be a fairy tale and i should have any and all opportunities handed to me on a silver platter -- hate to burst your bubble, but that aint the case. I have to work my ASS off just to survive. Just to keep from being homeless. Nobody is feeling sorry for me. I'm a US citizen and I am barely surviving.

So tell me, is someone a "slave" for taking a minimum wage job, working 60 hours a week to survive and make ends meet? Or is someone a slave for giving massages for $200 an hour and making more than what most people make in a week, in one day? Who is "enslaved" more in these two predicaments? Who is the victim?

Please tell me. I'm listening.

Mate I know we are all slaves to the dollar. Aussie dollar American dollar we all prostitute ourselves in some way or another to get it and you will get no argument from me on that point.

But at least we can change jobs. We can walk away. True banks might hold our debt and charge us interest on that debt but at least they won't disappear us. At least we won't end up somewhere up the bush with our throats cut. There's actual slavery going on out there and those people can't ever just walk away unless they escape. I'm not talking the legal sex trade like we enjoy in Australia either I'm talking the real underworld shit.

It's a tad different. Surely you see this?

 

[Acratopotes]

So tell me, is someone a "slave" for taking a minimum wage job, working 60 hours a week to survive and make ends meet? Or is someone a slave for giving massages for $200 an hour and making more than what most people make in a week, in one day? Who is "enslaved" more in these two predicaments? Who is the victim?

I think there is a difference between needing to make money to pay for stuff in general and being tied to a bunch of criminals. What makes a job slavery is the lack of choice. If your New York apartment is expensive so you have to work to pay for it, at least you get the choice of who to work for. if you were to freely choose to work in the sex industry to raise that money then I would say that's your decision. But if you owe money to a "manager" (pimp) who insists you work for him and your repayments will be taken directly with no choice of employment and no choice to borrow the money from someone else, a bank for example, to break your ties with the pimp then you are enslaved.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

Do you get a choice of who you get to work for? and what you get to do? i would argue that many people don't get that luxury.

I think there is a difference between needing to make money to pay for stuff in general and being tied to a bunch of criminals. What makes a job slavery is the lack of choice. If your New York apartment is expensive so you have to work to pay for it, at least you get the choice of who to work for. if you were to freely choose to work in the sex industry to raise that money then I would say that's your decision. But if you owe money to a "manager" (pimp) who insists you work for him and your repayments will be taken directly with no choice of employment and no choice to borrow the money from someone else, a bank for example, to break your ties with the pimp then you are enslaved.

 

[Acratopotes]

Do you get a choice of who you get to work for? and what you get to do? i would argue that many people don't get that luxury.

Obviously I have a limited perspective but I think most people do have some choice. I work in IT and there is certainly more than one employer in that field. Not necessarily on my doorstep so I might need to move but the possibility is there. For most jobs or professionals I can think of there is more than one employer. If you're a lawyer I bet there is more than one law firm in town. If you drive taxis or private hire there is probably more than one operator of the traditional sort as well as Uber. As a doctor there are various medical practices as well as hospitals. Fast food chef and over here we have MacD, Burger King, KFC and many independents. That doesn't mean you can move at the drop of a hat but people can and do change employer.

I do see a little of what you're getting at and the Wiktionary definition of prostitute includes the following:
"A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour.
Synonym: sellout". I enjoy the line of work I am in, but would admit that I'd probably do slighly different things if I didn't have worry about being paid and I suspect many are the same. That's not quite the same thing as being a slave, though.

 

[Acratopotes]

...The issue to me is entirely now gender based. What do I mean? Well, 9/10 prostitution Johns are going to be men. The audience for prostitution, whether gay or straight is going to be men. And oddly this offends women, as clearly it shows women don't value sex the same way as men do. But if someone says that fact... they are labeled as mysoginistic and sexist; even thought it's TRUE!

One of the difficulties of discussing sexually dimorphic behaviour is that it is, in some sense, a generalisation. There are always going to be exceptions. But to pick up on the idea that women don't value sex as much as men I think there is a little more to it than that. In general, it is thought that women have, and need, more of an emotional connection to go with the sex. If I went up to a strange woman and told her she was stunning and I was probably going to masturbate thinking of her that very evening she would very likely to find it creepy. That same woman may get horny as hell thinking about her b/f. If a strange woman came up to me and told me I was hot and she was going to masturbate thinking of me I'd thank her for the compliment and tell her I hoped she had fun. If I were single and fancied her I might even try to steer it into doing something together but even if she was ugly and we nothing more than exchange words it wouldn't bother me.

So, we're led to believe that male sexuality functions much more indiscriminately; that guys are prepared to get off and leave, paying if that's what's been agreed, whereas women are expected to need to be into the guy emotionally before she would agree to sex just for the shared pleasure of it. Therefore we suppose that being prepared to bypass the emotional connection in exchange is something unnatural and from that we suppose that there must be an element of desperation on the part of the woman to make her living that way. I can quite see that some may see it as sufficiently lucrative that it may beat longer hours at some other, less well-paid endevour but there are plenty engaged in prostition who are being exploited by others whether pimps or drug dealers and this is the only way to make the money the situation demands.

So this supposed sexual dimorphism explains why people don't get so worked up about male prostitutes. The general assumption is that men would be able to perform just fine in that situation without having to overcome a natural reluctance and may even enjoy.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

Just so you know there is a very popular website called Seeking Arrangement with hundreds, if not thousands of girls, seeking wealthy men with money who will compensate them for their time. You should ask why that site is so popular if like you say, women have so many other options.... right?

I guess instead of taking minimum wage jobs, flipping burgers. Or any job, many women CHOOSE and seem to PREFER to get paid a lot of money to be arm candy and more. Why is that?

One of the difficulties of discussing sexually dimorphic behaviour is that it is, in some sense, a generalisation. There are always going to be exceptions. But to pick up on the idea that women don't value sex as much as men I think there is a little more to it than that. In general, it is thought that women have, and need, more of an emotional connection to go with the sex. If I went up to a strange woman and told her she was stunning and I was probably going to masturbate thinking of her that very evening she would very likely to find it creepy. That same woman may get horny as hell thinking about her b/f. If a strange woman came up to me and told me I was hot and she was going to masturbate thinking of me I'd thank her for the compliment and tell her I hoped she had fun. If I were single and fancied her I might even try to steer it into doing something together but even if she was ugly and we nothing more than exchange words it wouldn't bother me.

So, we're led to believe that male sexuality functions much more indiscriminately; that guys are prepared to get off and leave, paying if that's what's been agreed, whereas women are expected to need to be into the guy emotionally before she would agree to sex just for the shared pleasure of it. Therefore we suppose that being prepared to bypass the emotional connection in exchange is something unnatural and from that we suppose that there must be an element of desperation on the part of the woman to make her living that way. I can quite see that some may see it as sufficiently lucrative that it may beat longer hours at some other, less well-paid endevour but there are plenty engaged in prostition who are being exploited by others whether pimps or drug dealers and this is the only way to make the money the situation demands.

So this supposed sexual dimorphism explains why people don't get so worked up about male prostitutes. The general assumption is that men would be able to perform just fine in that situation without having to overcome a natural reluctance and may even enjoy.

 

[1284665]

So - holy shit guys - no sex trafficking victims and prostitutes are not the same any more than farmers and slaves are the same thing. They are performing similar activities, but one has free will to engage in the labor for their own economic benefit and the other has been induced or forced to provide their labor for the benefit of others. It's a pretty bright line.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

ok. So - holy shit - by your logic, for example, you're saying the girls in the Epstein case were FORCED to take 200$ and go back to his mansion and massage him? ...or else? They had no "free will" to simply say "No." They couldn't have told their parents, or reported it to the police? I just want to be clear that this is the "pretty bright line" you mean?

also to be clear, if you watch the Frontline documentary on it. It's a documentary on prostitution, yet instead of calling it prostitution, they call it "sex trafficking." just to be clear.

So - holy shit guys - no sex trafficking victims and prostitutes are not the same any more than farmers and slaves are the same thing. They are performing similar activities, but one has free will to engage in the labor for their own economic benefit and the other has been induced or forced to provide their labor for the benefit of others. It's a pretty bright line.

 

[Sagittarius84]

ok. So - holy shit - by your logic, for example, you're saying the girls in the Epstein case were FORCED to take 200$ and go back to his mansion and massage him? ...or else? They had no "free will" to simply say "No." They couldn't have told their parents, or reported it to the police? I just want to be clear that this is the "pretty bright line" you mean?

also to be clear, if you watch the Frontline documentary on it. It's a documentary on prostitution, yet instead of calling it prostitution, they call it "sex trafficking." just to be clear.

Not the hill you want to die upon..Underage girls being whisked around to places under false pretenses , having their travel documentation taken away from them, then being offered a way out by pleasuring old rich men and their friends is not a "choice".

Im wondering by your replies if you truly have any concerns about prostitution vs. Sex trafficking, or if you're annoyed enough at the increased options women have to monetize their bodies or sexual services, you'll overlook all of the life factors that far too often make prostitution the only viable to make any type of substantial monies.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

you didn't answer the question. i'm making a point. you're changing the subject with ad hominem attacks.

Not the hill you want to die upon..Underage girls being whisked around to places under false pretenses , having their travel documentation taken away from them, then being offered a way out by pleasuring old rich men and their friends is not a "choice".

Im wondering by your replies if you truly have any concerns about prostitution vs. Sex trafficking, or if you're annoyed enough at the increased options women have to monetize their bodies or sexual services, you'll overlook all of the life factors that far too often make prostitution the only viable to make any type of substantial monies.

 

[Sagittarius84]

you didn't answer the question. i'm making a point. you're changing the subject with ad hominem attacks.

You literally prefaced your point with,

for example, you're saying the girls in the Epstein case were FORCED to take 200$ and go back to his mansion and massage him? ...or else? They had no "free will" to simply say "No." They couldn't have told their parents, or reported it to the police? I just want to be clear that this is the "pretty bright line" you mean?

It isn't an attack it's a direct addressing of the specific situation you chose...
But since you want to get hypothetical and posit your little query in your ideal world where statutory rape, hebephilia, and pedophilia are non factors, everything I stated after the underage aspect still stands on its own. I oh so wish prostitution was as benign as you seem to think it is...woman needs money, doesn't want to do white or blue collar work, so exchanges sexual favors and acts for money....but for so many the choice to get into sex work was one made under duress, or false pretenses, and assuming one can get to the police or proper authorites, any report they make about a customer or pimp abusing can also get them incriminated...
Or if you'd prefer for sex workers to assert their own safety, take the case of Cyntoia Brown, the then 16 yr old underaged prostitute that defended herself by killing her attempted racist only to spend the next 15 yrs in jail because her "job" made it damn near impossible to plead any type of self defense.

And this is only dealing with prostitution on the mainland..imagine you're whisked to an exotic locale where simply taking your documentation and cell phone prevents you from leaving or finding help..
If you'd like to go on a rant or make some diatribe about how these girls and their parents should've known better, be my guest and shake your fists at as many clouds as you can muster...still doesn't absolve those who enact such a situation, no matter what fucked up "choices" they provide.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Just so you know there is a very popular website called Seeking Arrangement with hundreds, if not thousands of girls, seeking wealthy men with money who will compensate them for their time. You should ask why that site is so popular if like you say, women have so many other options.... right?

Why is drug dealing so popular? How about petty crime...lucrative opportunities present themselves and human beings are prone to trying to eke out an advantage however they can., much more so if the other available options are nowhere near as lucrative.
If espousing feminist theory on the street corner paid $200 an hour what do you think many women would choose to do? How about scraping gum from underneath tables? Cleaning shitty bathrooms? Right or wrong people tend to follow the money or the demand.

 

[AtYourCervix10]

again, you're twisting words with pejoratives, this is not an "ideal world". that's on YOU. Your words not mine. i'm merely making cogent points and stating facts. you can be upset about facts if you like, but it has nothing to do with me. My points are not about statutory rape. My point is, and please see original post if you are confused, women have a choice -- just as much as i, or you do. as offensive as that seems to be to you.

i'm not ranting or shaking fists. i'm just making clear points based off facts.

You literally prefaced your point with,

It isn't an attack it's a direct addressing of the specific situation you chose...
But since you want to get hypothetical and posit your little query in your ideal world where statutory rape, hebephilia, and pedophilia are non factors, everything I stated after the underage aspect still stands on its own. I oh so wish prostitution was as benign as you seem to think it is...woman needs money, doesn't want to do white or blue collar work, so exchanges sexual favors and acts for money....but for so many the choice to get into sex work was one made under duress, or false pretenses, and assuming one can get to the police or proper authorites, any report they make about a customer or pimp abusing can also get them incriminated...
Or if you'd prefer for sex workers to assert their own safety, take the case of Cyntoia Brown, the then 16 yr old underaged prostitute that defended herself by killing her attempted racist only to spend the next 15 yrs in jail because her "job" made it damn near impossible to plead any type of self defense.

And this is only dealing with prostitution on the mainland..imagine you're whisked to an exotic locale where simply taking your documentation and cell phone prevents you from leaving or finding help..
If you'd like to go on a rant or make some diatribe about how these girls and their parents should've known better, be my guest and shake your fists at as many clouds as you can muster...still doesn't absolve those who enact such a situation, no matter what fucked up "choices" they provide.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Fact 1: Epstein is a child predator. For you to have any type of solvent point to make about women having choices or not, it would be in your best interest to not invoke an example that has to do with girls.
Fact 2 : Your inability to reference an appropriate example when trying to make a point either implies you are ignorant to the accusations against Epstein (which should preclude you from using him) or you somehow equate teenaged girls to women, liable for the consequences they face as opposed to the offenders that offer them little to no other feasible options given whatever circumstance...

Or.......You can continue trying to backpedal from your bad example, by insisting I dont get the jist of what you're saying

 

[AtYourCervix10]

sigh. pearls before swine. i'm not sure what you think I'm "backpedaling" from.

In fact, quite the opposite. Refer back to the original post. Watch the Frontline doc from which I make my original points. You'll like it. It's PBS. It doesn't require you to read anything.

Or if you feel ambitious, you can read the NYTimes piece I cited. But I will warn you, it does require you to read and use comprehension -- which may be difficult for you. But I believe in you!

 

[deleted1074483]

for my two pennies worth, its clearly a different situation in different parts of the world, but sex trafficking, to my mind, is where a person is bought/kidnapped/smuggled from one location to another and made to engage in sex with other people. Its against the person's will, ignores their freedoms including freedom of choice, and has to be wrong under any situation.

prostitution/rent that is a free choice of the individual concerned, where they do not feel obligated or forced in any way to engage in such actions, is not sex trafficking?

There have been tv shows here in the uk, talking with both men and women in the sex industry including young men/women using it as a means to support themselves through university, older woman acting as dominatrix (where there is no penetrative sex involved) to gay men who just see it as a way of getting more sex, that show its not a straightforward equation.

For every forced person, there is another for whom it is a deliberate choice. so this is about control, control of the situation, and who they see, what they do etc.

If prostitution were legalised then it would offer some protection to the group who actively choose to make a living this way, but it would do nothing to get rid of the black market trade that goes on.

as to whether its right that someone sells their body for sex, that is a moral judgment for individuals and that judgment should be respected whichever side of the argument people fall?

 

[AtYourCervix10]

right. exactly. thank you for your reason and intelligence. hit the nail on the head.

and back to my original post. there is a Frontline Documentary on "Sex Trafficking." WATCH IT. My point is, as is yours.... the documentary covers girls in Pheonix, Arizona who are suburban, lower/middle class who are engaging in prostitution. HOWEVER, THEY CALL IT "SEX TRAFFICKING". NOT Prostitution. But yet it's like any other documentary on prostitution I've seen. Why the sudden label shift and emergence of "Sex Trafficking" term?

Everybody so far above.... when they discuss "sex trafficking" mentions girls being smuggled into a distant country, across borders, against their will, and FORCED into this kind of work to earn some kind of citizenship. My point is. this documentary, there is NONE OF THAT. there is No green card, there is No border smuggling. These are American, suburban, white girls living in Arizona walking down the street with cell phones. These are simply girls looking to make a quick buck (Entrepreneurial)..... HOWEVER, when they are caught by police and put on camera, what happens? The narrative changes. They blame others and call themselves victims. I would too if i was looking at going to jail.

All my point is, sigh... and i'm saying it again... the "sex trafficking" term seems to be a one size fits all label that is bandied about by the press. And IMHO opinion there is a political motivation for this emergence for this term. And I'm simply asking people to look at it. Examine it with a curious mind? Is it correct? Is it true? Is it accurate?

I am NOT judging, OR CONDONING any of this behavior. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and an emerging narrative that seems questionable.

for my two pennies worth, its clearly a different situation in different parts of the world, but sex trafficking, to my mind, is where a person is bought/kidnapped/smuggled from one location to another and made to engage in sex with other people. Its against the person's will, ignores their freedoms including freedom of choice, and has to be wrong under any situation.

prostitution/rent that is a free choice of the individual concerned, where they do not feel obligated or forced in any way to engage in such actions, is not sex trafficking?

There have been tv shows here in the uk, talking with both men and women in the sex industry including young men/women using it as a means to support themselves through university, older woman acting as dominatrix (where there is no penetrative sex involved) to gay men who just see it as a way of getting more sex, that show its not a straightforward equation.

For every forced person, there is another for whom it is a deliberate choice. so this is about control, control of the situation, and who they see, what they do etc.

If prostitution were legalised then it would offer some protection to the group who actively choose to make a living this way, but it would do nothing to get rid of the black market trade that goes on.

as to whether its right that someone sells their body for sex, that is a moral judgment for individuals and that judgment should be respected whichever side of the argument people fall?

 

[deleted1074483]

Everybody so far above.... when they discuss "sex trafficking" mentions girls being smuggled into a different country, across borders, and FORCED into this kind of work. My point is. this documentary, there is NONE OF THAT. there is No green card, there is No border smuggling. These are simply girls looking to make a quick buck..... HOWEVER, when they are caught by police and on camera, what happens? They blame others and call themselves victims. I would too if i was looking at doing hard time.

All my point is, sigh... and i'm saying it again... the "sex trafficking" term seems to be a one size fits all label that is bandied about by the press. And IMHO opinion there is a political motivation for this emergence for this term. And I'm simply asking people to look at it. Examine it with a curious mind? Is it correct? Is it true? Is it accurate?[/QUOTE]

I think you're absolutely right and i'm agreeing with you. its possibly different outside of the USA? there's certainly no lack of distinction this side of the pond!!

 

[Sagittarius84]

Everybody so far above.... when they discuss "sex trafficking" mentions girls being smuggled into a distant country, across borders, against their will, and FORCED into this kind of work to earn some kind of citizenship.

Maybe if you didn't refer to trafficking situations as such, it would help your cause

ok. So - holy shit - by your logic, for example, you're saying the girls in the Epstein case were FORCED to take 200$ and go back to his mansion and massage him? ...or else?

All my point is, sigh... and i'm saying it again... the "sex trafficking" term seems to be a one size fits all label that is bandied about by the press. And IMHO opinion there is a political motivation for this emergence for this term. And I'm simply asking people to look at it.

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..

"I concur" would've sufficed...
I dig the Kanye logic though..when called out on a faux pas just parrot the last intelligent thought you came across and co opt it as your own....
No mutha fuckin duh there's a political/social motivation for making sex trafficking an umbrella term for prostitution, but geniuses like yourself make their job very easy, and just knowing your mindset isnt exactly an uncommon one makes me kind of ok with prostitution remaining illegal, lest unsuspecting and undeserving ladies having their respective cervixes allegedly to be met...