Joanne McNeil from the April 2008 issue
(Page 2 of 2)
Estimating the actual number of trafficked sex workers is nearly impossible. Many studies do not distinguish between illegal migration and the smuggling of a person against her will. Others fail to acknowledge that some trafficked workers might not have a problem with the prostitution itself but object to human rights violations and other poor conditions in their new homes.
New legislation threatens to further conflate coercive and consensual sex work. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 would appropriate $872 million over four years for protecting and assisting the victims of trafficking. The bill would revise the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and would establish a minimum sentence of 20 years for sex traffickers, by removing language requiring proof of fraud, force, or coercion. Currently, when there is no proof of coercion, pimps are prosecuted under the Mann Act, typically receiving a three-to-five-year sentence. Under the new bill, which overwhelmingly passed the House in December but at press time had not been introduced in the Senate, prosecutors could seek the 20-year penalty without presenting victim testimony.
A narrow focus on sex trafficking cases undermines the fight against another appalling (and possibly more frequent) practice: forced manual labor. Domestic and international funds that might be allocated to the protection of forced laborers are instead used to crack down on consensual massage parlors and brothels.
Steven Wagner, former head of the anti-trafficking program within the Department of Health and Human Services, has commented on the millions of dollars “wasted” in grants aimed at combating sex slavery. “Many of the organizations that received grants didn’t really have to do anything,” he told The Washington Post last fall. “They were available to help victims. There weren’t any victims.” Tony Fratto, then deputy White House press secretary, said the issue is “not about the numbers. It’s really about the crime and how horrific it is.” There’s no question the crime is horrific, but the numbers appear to be modest, unless you equate all prostitution with slavery.
Karen Abbott’s book suggests that prostitution was better
respected a century ago. While today’s high-profile johns hold
press conferences at which they ask the public for forgiveness,
Everleigh Club clients boasted of their membership. Perhaps
prostitution was considered a necessary evil, keeping husbands from
defiling their wives with their prurient fantasies. Or perhaps, as
the Chicago Tribune
suggested in a 1936 article about the Everleighs, people believed
respectable women “were safer from rapes and other crimes if open
prostitution was maintained and ordered as an outlet for the lusts
of men.” Patronizing as that viewpoint might be, it is no more
insulting than the implication that women never consent to sex
work.
Just as feminists today rally around anti–sex trafficking measures, many anti–white slavery activists at the turn of the 20th century were politically progressive and believed in women’s suffrage. “White slavery gave women a chance to insert themselves in political discourse,” Abbott notes. “America’s women would best know how to protect America’s girls.” But such activism infantilizes women instead of promoting gender equality. Women don’t need protection from their own choices.
Joanne McNeil is a writer in Massachusetts. Her articles have appeared in The Washington Times and her photography has appeared in $pread, a sex industry magazine.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"But such activism infantilizes women instead of promoting
gender equality."
Oh please! The average of entry into the sex trade is 14, and most
of these girls are fleeing homes where they have been physically
and/or sexually abused. They take up sex work as their only means
to survival. Check out the peer-reviewed literature on the modern
sex trade before continuing to spread this ideologically driven
nonsense.
"The Washington Post reported that, after spending $150 million
on task forces and grants since 2000, the federal government had
identified only 1,362 victims of sex trafficking in the U.S. The
Post also reported that the original"
First, that is what they found. There is no reason to beleive they
found every one of them, so the true number whatever it is has to
be higher by some degree. Second, 1,362 people is a lot when you
think about it. That is 1,362 women who were basically sold into
slavery. That is bloody awful. In a country where an amber alert
gets 24/7 coverage, 1362 women ending up in sex slavery, that we
know of, is just nothing? I don't think so. Just because they are
not pretty rich white girls doesn't mean their lives don't count
for anything.
I think both of you are missing the point. If prostitution was
legal most brothels would look like the bunny ranch and not 14 year
olds in back rooms.
I don't think the piece was saying that there is no sex slavery
going on today. However it is saying that trying to equate
prostitution like the bunny ranch with sex slavery is
"ideologically driven nonsense."
Javier,
You are right, the prevelence of sex slavery is the result of
prohibition. It ought to be legal. But, the article seemed to be
saying the 1362 confirmed cases was no big deal. That is wrong. It
is a big deal.
John: There is no reason to believe they
found every one of them, so the true number whatever it is has to
be higher by some degree. Second, 1,362 people is a lot when you
think about it. That is 1,362 women who were basically sold into
slavery.
92,000 rapes took place in 2006. Not every victim of rape comes
forward, so we can assume that that number is low, as well. Also,
given the vast resources devoted to finding so few victims, can we
not assume that we are pretty effective at finding these people?
Probably more effective than we are at identifying rape victims.
So, the rape to "white slavery" ratio probably stands at 100:1 or
more.
The point being, we're creating a false epidemic to justify unjust
laws.
If prostitution was legal most brothels would look like the
bunny ranch and not 14 year olds in back rooms.
How about we just enforce the law better and arrest the sex
criminal "johns" and stop prostitution to better protect womyn.
Prostitution is degrading to all womyn.
The average of entry into the sex trade is 14, and most of
these girls are fleeing homes where they have been physically
and/or sexually abused. They take up sex work as their only means
to survival.
classwarrior, assuming your assertion on age is true, are you
saying these kids are making bad choices and ought to stay home and
be abused?
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/ive_seen_my_share_of_spitzers.php
This is a really great article. The kind of thing I wish Reason
would write but sadly doesn't.
Horatio,
Just because white slavery is not the worst problem in the world
doesn't mean that it is not a problem. I am sorry but I find the
fact that that many women are smuggled into the country to live
their lives in misery to be pretty disturbing.
Sarah: How about we just enforce the law
better and arrest the sex criminal "johns" and stop prostitution to
better protect womyn. Prostitution is degrading to all
womyn.
I'm guessing you're just being obtuse to get a rise (no pun
intended) out of people, but I'll bite (pun intended -- I'm into
that).
Ah, yes. Just enforce the law better. That's the answer to every
social ill. We can do this with prostitution, drugs, gambling ...
the possibilities are endless. Of course, if we choose to enforce
these laws better, we'll need much larger police forces. Having 5%
of the population working as police officers will give us the
desirable 1 to 20 ratio needed to occupy protect our
country. And, of course, even with the larger police
state forces, we'll not be able to keep an eye on
everybody without placing cameras, wiretaps and microphones all
over to make sure that no one is engaging in unsanctioned behavior.
That would make me feel better. At least I could go to bed (ha cha
cha) knowing that nobody is being happy doing something of which I
disapprove.
Womyn. Yeah. I probably just got trolled. Oh, well.
@ Sarah
I'm sorry, but your collectivist "all womyn" is b.s. Some women
choose to be prostitutes and seem to make a living at it. Going
after johns means you are taking money out of their pockets because
it offends YOU.
Writing women womyn degrades the English language, BTW.
John: Just because white slavery is not the
worst problem in the world doesn't mean that it is not a problem. I
am sorry but I find the fact that that many women are smuggled into
the country to live their lives in misery to be pretty
disturbing.
So, our target should be 0 women forced into sexual slavery? How
realistic is that? Fewer crimes is better than more, of course, but
we tolerate some amount of crime because the alternative is a
police state. If we're already dumping boatloads of money into
preventing a very rare crime, we should admit that we've reached
the point of diminishing returns. That money could be better spent
elsewhere.
@ Sarah, again
You also seem to be ignorant that the biggest loss for prostitutes
comes from giving freebies to the cops to keep from being arrested.
Now THAT is degrading.
How about we just enforce the law better and arrest the sex
criminal "johns" and stop prostitution to better protect womyn.
Prostitution is degrading to all womyn.
first, CONSENSUAL prostitution should not be a crime.
You are probably pro-choice but as soon as a woman does something
with her body you don't approve, your feminist authoritarianism is
apparent.
So, our target should be 0 women forced into sexual slavery?
How realistic is that?
Great goal, but the real problem is that when the real number
approaches zero the definition will be expanded to guarantee an
adequate supply of 'victims'.
Check out the peer-reviewed literature on the modern sex
trade before continuing to spread this ideologically driven
nonsense.
Classwarrior, you somehow neglected to provide links to the PRL's
on this. Show me the studies.
Javier, to say that Sarah is "probably
pro-choice" is like saying that Santa is probably diabetic. The
satirical flourish at the end -- "womyn" -- was probably supposed
to clue us in to the tongue-in-cheek nature of her comments.
Then again, the "sex criminal 'johns'" part makes me think that
maybe she's serious. Something about that seems just angry enough
to be a real-deal box-lunch diesel. If it's not, though, that's
some grade-A satire. I couldn't have created a more convincing
angry feminist if I tried.
"So, our target should be 0 women forced into sexual slavery?
How realistic is that?"
Actually it is fairly realistic if we would just be smart enough to
legalize and regulate it. Yes, our target should be zero. That goal
does not mean a police state. In fact it can mean the opposite.
Stop going after women who freely if mistakenly chose this line of
work and instead spend our efforts stopping the worst aspects of
it. Ms. McNeil's blyth dismissal that there are only 1367 sex
slaves imported into the country every year does the cause of good
policy no good.
"classwarrior wrote: Check out the peer-reviewed literature on
the modern sex trade before continuing to spread this ideologically
driven nonsense."
Do you think you could provide some citations, such as the one you
are drawing your claim of 14 as average age of entry into "the sex
trade?" Do these peer-reviewed literature include which
countries/cultures this age average is being drawn from?
Fitz,
Perhaps the 14 year old peers of the paper writer have shifted
their interst, as many 14 year olds are known to do?
John: Actually it is fairly realistic if we
would just be smart enough to legalize and regulate it.
Natascha Kampusch. Game, set, match.
I'm sorry, but your collectivist "all womyn" is
b.s.
No, anything that offends one wimmin offends all womyn. Any crime
any man does against one wimmin is a crime done bay all men and all
men can be punished.
Writing women womyn degrades the English language,
BTW.
No, because the "word" women contains the word men, which means it
is a creation of the evil hierarchical patriarchy to oppress
womyn.
You are probably pro-choice but as soon as a woman does
something with her body you don't approve, your feminist
authoritarianism is apparent.
No wimmin chooses prostitution, or any form of heterosexual sex
freely, it is all forced on them by the patriarchy, which
brainwashes all womyn to think they need men.
There is an organized worldwide patriarchy in place to control
womyn.
Hm. Is 2nd post Sarah the same person as 1st post Sarah? It lacks the subtlety, but maybe "she" figures her cover is blown, anyway.
I think Sarah is really Sugerfree. He finally read one to many of those feminist blogs and it melted his brain. Come back Sugerfree.
Ok, sarah is just trolling us.
john paul jones,
i believe it has to be satire.
There is an organized worldwide patriarchy in place to
control womyn.
Good work! But you'll never figure out our secret handshake.
"Good work! But you'll never figure out our secret
handshake."
Ahh, but we have figured out your secret handshake. What threw us
off at first was that it is not a handshake at all; it's ball
scratching.
Wyll... I think my and all other myn are offyndyd by thy
assumption that all things that come of myn or contain myn is
bad.
Nyphilium
There is an organized worldwide patriarchy in place to
control womyn.
Good work! But you'll never figure out our secret
handshake.
I used to hear about Jewish banking conspiracy that controlled the
world, but even though I was Jewish nobody would tell me how to
join. Now I find that there is a conspiracy to control women, and
even though I qualify again ChrisO won't tell me how to join.
What's a guy gotta do to join these controlling conspiracies?
What's a guy gotta do to join these controlling
conspiracies?
First rule of the Organized Worldwide Patriarchy is: you do not
talk about the Organized Worldwide Patriarchy.
No Chris, the first rule is that you always act like you are not a member and sarcasticlly say you wish you could be but you never get invited to the meetings.
As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all
men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten
all womyn. He can beat or kill the wimmin he claims to love; he can
rape womyn. He can sexually molest his daughters. THE VAST MAJORITY
OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.
All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it
remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their
violations of womyn. All womyn learn in childhood that womyn as a
sex are men's prey. All men are rapists and that's all they are. We
live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against
womyn. All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an
act of violence perpetrated against a wimmin. I believe that womyn
have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man
structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have
it. He's just incapable of it. The traditional flowers of courtship
are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim
before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid
down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being
used.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE
ABOVE.
One question Sarah, do you prefer suspension, girder or truss?
Sarah screeched: All men are rapists and that's all they
are.
Even gay men? Even if you consider us to all be rapists, how does
that affect you?
The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional
flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The
cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually
violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.
Sarah, I was struck by the beauty of this writing. But it seems you
are ripping off Andrea
Dworkin. Apparently womyn also abuse other womyn. By your logic
clearly all womyn are collectively guilty of stealing from other
womyn.
So basically Sarah you are saying all women are morons oppressed by evil men. Why do you hate women so much? Why do you think they are such stupid creatures so easily dominated by men? There are so many layers of self loathing going on in your positions, I don't even know where to begin.
@John
You are right, the prevelence of sex slavery is the result of
prohibition. It ought to be legal.
Well, we all know the libertarian solution to that - legalize sex
slavery! Then the problem goes away! Let the market sort it
out!
@rana
Ahh, but we have figured out your secret handshake. What threw
us off at first was that it is not a handshake at all; it's ball
scratching.
SPLOORF!!!
You owe me a new keyboard!
All I know are two things: One, many of the women working, have a history of being sexually or physically abused before getting into the trade. The second is that many women working the strip and the corner need to do drugs to get through their "jobs". So these women seem to be pretty vulnerable to me.
As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females,
all men need not.
In fallacy land (where communists and feminists frolic), this is
called the Fallacy of Guilt By Association.
The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all
womyn.
In fallacy land, this is called Fallacy of Composition
He can beat or kill the wimmin he claims to love; he can rape
womyn. He can sexually molest his daughters. THE VAST MAJORITY OF
MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.
In FANTASY land, this is called innuendo. And not very smart
innuendo, at that.
All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred,
demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes.
You mean, MATRIARCHISTS do not??
Men want privacy for their violations of womyn.
In fallacy land... oh, you get the picture. Anyway, this is called
Begging the Question. When you add so many fallacies in one spot,
one has to question the rationality of the person that forwards
such arguments.
You guys. So sophisticated about so many things, yet so easily
trolled. The first post should have been enough, but surely, by the
time we hear about
demanding it remain inviolate
we know, do we not, that anyone in this millennium capable of using
the subjunctive is not diddling the rest of the language
ingenuously.
Who wants to bet Sarah wrote this while wearing painter's pants, a flannel shirt, listening to Holly Near while eating a tofu burger? Neander-dykes from 1976 phone home!
There is an organized worldwide conspiracy to enact patriarchy. It is called Islam. Sarah and her sisters have done nothing about it except to roll over and spread their legs for it.
John | March 13, 2008, 12:55pm | #
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/ive_seen_my_share_of_spitzers.php
This is a really great article. The kind of thing I wish Reason
would write but sadly doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it John (or another John?) in
the thread on Kerry's opinion piece that kept insisting Kerry
herself had to ply the trade in order to hold her opinion - and now
he wants more articles written from a behind the scenes perspective
of the sex trade?
So... yes. Uh huh. We get it. The sex trade is sexy to you.
And Sarah, it's okay. We all sometimes read feministing and
Pandagon for kicks, so we know, we know already, and it's
much funnier when the person writing it really believes it.
I say that as a feminist and a Girl Scout! And as someone who
attended a woman's college (though I took Evolution for my Woman's
Studies requirement, because I am awesome).
megs,
The sex trade is sexy to me and you didn't even notice :(
Guess it is true what they say, the hot chicks ignore the nice
guys.
So these women seem to be pretty vulnerable to
me.
I find vulnerable women to be so cute!
Until they stop being vulnerable, of course, and take out their
frustrations on the guy in closest proximity, their teeth become
fangs, fingernails become claws and they begin devouring human
flesh . . .
Prostitution cannot be defended on moral grounds. Neither can
getting drunk every night, having sex with a new person every week,
and other activities which are legal, but might strike many people
as immoral and reckless. Some people find guns immoral. Does that
mean we should ban all guns? Do the members of PETA have the right
to ban eating meat?
Indeed, its perfectly legal for a person to have unprotected sex
with an unlimited number of people. Yet, if so much as a cent
exchanges hands, tat person has now committed a crime!
Outlawing a vice is not the only way to discourage it. Tobacco, for
instance, is legal, but we tax and regulate the hell out of it.
Legalize prostitution, but get rid of the pimps, ban street
walking, tax it a lot, and require prostitutes to get checked for
sex diseases every month and educate them in safer sex practices.
At the same time, the government could encourage women (and men) to
find another line of work.
Chef's prostitute song
"A prostitute is like any other woman
They all trade sex for something
and they do it well"
ALERT: The International Patrimony is having its mid-year
meeting in May in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in our secret meeting
room next to the Irish Pub. Details to follow in Male Code, so have
your Secret Male Decoder Rings ready.
Topics to be discussed include planning our annual cookie sale.
My wife won't give me sex every day, and I don't blame her --
she doesn't have my testosterone drive, bless her heart.
My regular whore loves her work, and I enjoy her immensely.
Deal with it.
What about people like Brice Taylor, Cathy Obrien, Carol Rutz, Ted Gunderson and Mark Phillips who all say that organized CIA mind control and sex slavery happened to them and their families and that it is still going on strong just kept very quiet? What about them?
Ever talk to or see Taylor, O'Brien, et a.l? Or poor Ted
Gunderson for that matter?
Just because someone claims something or believes that something
happened doesn't make it so. It seems far less likely when they
spend the majority of their time charging people for performances
of their "gripping tales of sexual manipulation" rather then
actually looking to file charges against anyone involved.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245