So disturbing! I'm also a fan of the Post and many of its reporters, who have long been committed to drawing attention to human rights issues. I hope they stand with us and their industry colleagues once and for all.

It only takes a moment to sign the petition--make your voices heard.

Not to make light of its tragically flawed revenue model, but who would have thought that the Washington Post could be a bigger phallic symbol than the Washington Monument?

Accepting advertisements for legal enterprises only should be a minimum requirement in any form of media ad sales. It's simple ethics. The paper's response to this petition will be telling. It should be swift: No sex in the sports section.

I know probably none of you are going share my views, but here they are. As much as I feel just as strongly about the ridiculousness of the Post doing allowing this, I believe that there's room for consentual prositution. They've already got it in VEGAS! I don't understand the hypocrisy we live these days! I don't care what someone is doing in their own rooms, and on their own time. Key word in there was consentual too, I'm not refering to these poor victims that become sex slaves.

We need to find ways to get money out of the hands of thugs, and I believe if you can find a common ground maybe, just maybe we can take care of the real criminals!We can also get the practice off the streets and nail these PIMPS HARDCORE... Throw the book at them, get them for everything you can! Tax invasion is one good one I don't see enough of in these cases. I guess ultimately I would like to see more revenue sources go to our government. Never thought I'd say that one, but seriously. There are BILLIONS, hell tens of billions of  dollars at the very least being handed straight to thugs, and gangs alike! Maybe if we had a higher revenue source we could afford to keep so many of our kids from dropping out of high school! It's ridiculous that in some areas it's almost half in major cities is the drop out rate! Why is that? A lot of it is money shortage! That's my rant on prostitution, like I said I know many disagree, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Justin Mondry: I was a bit surprised to learn that prostitution is illegal in most of the US, unlike some other Western countries. "Legal but regulated" makes a lot more sense in terms of reducing the harm.

One example: an illegal brothel won't have brochures out about HIV and other STDs. Another: I'd expect it's easier to work with legal brothels in tracking down who might be using trafficked women or engaging in other abuses.

As for the Washington Post, I guess I'm used to living in a society where prostitution is legal, so I'm less easily offended. Maybe I'd be more concerned if I know someone who'd been caught up in it - I'm not sure. I can see the argument against them accepting advertising, especially for unregulated brothels, where conditions are unknown... but it doesn't seem like the main issue here.

Lamentable in that it helps create a market, but try getting support or media coverage for social enterprise aimed at root causes, the poverty, corruption and disposability that operates in a vicious cycle of despair to supply women and children as raw materials and catalyse an HIV epidemic.

Children rendered into institutions to graduate on to the street and a life of prostitution and crime, children having children to create yet more disposability.

This surely is the greater tragedy, that we are only offended by that which appears on our own streets.

Human Trafficking is not the same thing as Prostitution! When you conflate the two, you end up making matters worse for sex workers and not helping trafficking victims.

There is nothing wrong with advertising your sexual services.

The sex industry and sex slavey are two separate issues. We have sex slavery and worker slavery so it is really all part of worker slavery.
Sex inflames the debate, we have far too much religious dogmatic repression of sexually as it is. Consensual sex work may cut down on quite a bit of sex crime and abuse as a matter of fact.

Nearly all newspapers that accept any type of personal ads fall into this category. They tend to defend what they do as being protected and being for free speech but few if any do any checking or screening to see if they are aiding and abetting sex slavery and trafficking - that's their real weak spot and place people should press them on. If you had to offer up a valid ID to place such an ad and wait until it was checked for being valid and against police records, those ads would plummit and the paper's reputation restored.

This article states:

"Advertisements for massage parlors that are often fronts for brothels selling trafficked women are run in The Post every day"

The problem is that just because SOME massage parlors are fronts for prostitution, and some of those are fronts for human trafficking, does not necessarily mean that the places advertised in the post are the ones doing the trafficking. 

Therefore, this article does not appear to state with any certainty that the Post is supporting human trafficking.  So is this really the issue here, or the author using human trafficking as the pretext to condemn prostitution in general - which in itself does not have to be criminal?  I wonder.

If the Post is guilty of what you say, then this article needs some more meat to it, namely, evidence that the parlors advertising in the paper are the same ones engaged in human trafficking.  I imagine such evidence would be hard to come by, however, because if it were readily available, it would then be used in bringing the criminals to justice.

I am in part playing Devil's advocate here, and do not mean in any way to defend the Post, and certainly not human trafficking!  But it also really irks me when spurious connections are made for political purposes - here perhaps as a moralistic statement against prostitution.

As a social justice advocate, against Poverty and Homelessness as well as against Human trafficing - not sex service workers, I know first hand - The newspapers do have a policy on what editorials they will carry. and what advertisements they will carry.

The Uppper Middle Class Washington Post, refuses to carry word  of those who experience these soul robbing facts day after day. For whom the safety net is deliberately Broken and laws twisted.  As a activist I face these fact with those I wish to help, are told bogus facts on aid laws. And there is next to nothing I can do when these worthy people are wrongfully denied the aid for which they are qualified. 

I explain the appeal process, and that only 25%actually Win. But these are people who are hanging onto life, by the skin on their teeth.  They have not a week to spend waiting for an appeal.  Their resource's are limited.  As the person who staffs the hot line, I waste my time telling procedure which either do not work, or can not be exercised.

What is wrong with expecting proper due process, the first time anyone in New England and the other state apply?  What is wrong with someone like myself, or social workers expecting not to waste their time with being  illegally obstinate, as they twist valid  good laws, into bad laws. And just place the one needing aid just beyond aid.

The WASHINGTON POST WILL NOT CARRY WORDS OF ABUSE OF POWER BY GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS. 

  I think they should Omit Sexual advertisements not Impose Silince on political voices. 

Who needs the Post when we have Craigslist? The Post pales in comparison to the number of ads for massages that appear daily on Craigslist in every city in the US.

If you want to try and end sexual trafficking you should start with Craigslist and not the "small potatoes" Post.

ALL newspapers have ads like that. Why are you picking on the Post?

Newspapers are dying in case you didn't notice. They are all going to go out of business soon. So, in all likelihood, you won't have any newspaper to complain about in the near future.

I agree with some posters on here, prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated. That would not get rid of all of the human traffiking, but it certainly would cut out a lot of them.

The point is, the Washington Post is placing profits above interigety. They think nothing of saying to the affect of " We will not print an editorial, accusing public officials of wrong doing."  But think next to nothing about taking ads to violate the rights of POOR immigants.

The rich immigrants can afford a ticket to the US. It is the poor of many nationaities who are exploited. 

Often even us in social services ignore the overlap in our clients. 

What about newspapers that endorse the criminalization of prostitution while at the same time accepting money from sex workers for ads?  This happened with certain San Francisco Bay area newspapers last Fall during the Prop. K campaign in San Francisco.  Prop. K was the initiative to decriminalize prostitution.  There were papers that on the one hand, endorsed keeping laws in place that are resulting in sex workers being arrested, but on the other hand, accepted money from sex workers to place ads.  Among the arguments these papers gave for opposing Prop. K was that decriminalizing prostitution would promote trafficking, but if the papers really believed that, then why would they accept money from sex workers to place ads in the first place?  What's the message here?  Actions speak louder than words and the fact that such papers will accept money from sex workers leads me to question whether they really believe that decriminalizing prostitution causes trafficking, or if this was nothing more than a PR stunt.  Personally, I'm convinced it was the latter and I see right through this tactic.  This is like telling sex workers, "Give us your money so we can use it to endorse and promote oppressive laws against you."   Yet, I'm not noticing any uproar about these tactics on this discussion board.  That being said, kudos to the "San Francisco Bay Guardian" and all other papers that supported the human rights, wellbeing, safety, and empowerment of sex workers by endorsing Prop. K.

Why pick on the Washington Post and the "old media"? That is disingenuous; the Post's role in prostitution is miniscule compared to the Internet's. If you don't believe me take a look at the postings under "erotic services" for your city's Craigslist site.

Human trafficking, also known as modern slavery, is the second largest and fastest growing criminal industry in the world. Victims experience a loss of freedom and exploitation at the hands of their traffickers who buy and sell them in pursuit of profit. In human trafficking situations, traffickers (men and women) gain complete control over victims through force, fraud, or coercion and force them into the labor, services, or commercial sex industry in order to generate profit from their labor and commercial sex acts. Some of the forms of violence traffickers use to control their victims include brutal beatings, rape, lies and deception, threats of serious harm or familial harm, and psychological abuse.  Victims are paid nothing and cannot leave. 

Every country is affected by modern slavery – including the US.  Victims can be U.S. citizens or foreign nationals, any race, male or female, child or adult of any age, rich or poor, any education level.

If you have reason to suspect that someone is a victim of human trafficking, or are interested in learning more about this issue, call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline (1-888-373-7888). Multilingual call specialists are on standby 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All calls are confidential.  Information is also available at www.slaverystillexists.org.

I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but these situations persist because women make more money providing sexual services than they would working at Kentucky Fried Chicken!!! BLAM! That's IT! Prostitutes make $20 an hour (sometimes $20 a MINUTE), Strippers make $200 a night, Porn actresses make $2000 per SCENE or more! Take the PROFIT out of sex...if you can...and women can have the cool, fun, safe jobs that MEN have (like ROOFING!) I'm not being unsympathetic, human trafficking is heinous, but it would take an equally heinous amount of brainwashing or torture to force someone into sex service against their will. A truly strong-willed person could resist the forces prodding them into providing sexual services (and/or, merely be so defensive against it the pimps would realize they'd have a losing proposition on their hands)...Finally, the Washington Post is a "lightweight"...check out the Las Vegas newspapers anytime. It's an ad-space battle between the 'massage parlors' (which might actually BE massage parlors) and the women who independently advertise themselves.

Don't kill the messenger...LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION!--K.K. 

A DEEP SADNESS PREVADES ALL MY SENSE OF SANITY WHEN?

Those for and those angst all-common sense and reason that use the term sexual business might dread some day what the outcome of their words bring them. My question who called it that and are there other terms like that ---that should be used to depict other things done illicitly. 

Now who is clueless?

 Is this our generation when just calling something this or that a different way instead of what it is that----------help us to take away the scourge from our own soul from those doing?

Have some lost the real sight of knowing what is wrong and right any longer?

Last thought; a great wise sage once said----A society is no greater than it lowest most afflicted left alone to die citizen. SO THINK ON THOSE THINGS.

Dwight Baker We The Peoples Advocacy WTPA

Info contact dbaker007@stx.rr.com

I'm guessing the Washington Post operates much like other media outlets with editorial and advertising departments kept separated. Although the paper may report on trafficking, the editorial department is not allowed to influence the ad department, just as the ad department wouldn't be allowed to persuade editorial to report certain stories in order to gain advertisers favor. However, that doesn't mean the ad department shouldn't be responsible. The onus is on them to research advertisers and make sure they are legitimate businesses. Unfortunately, in an error of declining revenues, most publishers are concerned about profits first, morals later.  

I personally find prostitution abhorant, but I support the right of women (and men) to be prostitutes if they so chose. In desperate times, and in desperation, women should have that option, just as men have the option to use their superior (by which I mean larger, stronger) muscles, to earn a living in hard times. In both cases we sell the use of our bodies by others.

I support the right of every person of sovereignty over their own bodies, and reject the idea that society, usually meaning the government, has any right to control them, unless direct and demonstrable harm is done to others, against their will. Therefore, I cannot object too strenuously if the Washington Post profits indirectly or otherwise from prostitution.

I must make clear that this is a separate issue from trafficking in humans and sexual slavery, in my mind. Let me use an analogy. We would not reject bananas, or banana businesses, simply because some banana trade might be illegal, and even harm some people, would we? I reject trading in humans for sexual or any other purposes, but I may not reject those purposes themselves, as long as they are entered into in a fully knowing and voluntary manner, and so long as others are not hurt against their wills. In other words, I DO chose freedom, even though some aspects of it might be unsavory to me.

It seems to me that the Polaris Project is directed at fighting prostitution, as much as at trade in humans and sexual slavery, and that this crusade, although extremely legitimate in and of itself, is ACTUALLY an attack on prostitution.

The Post is NOT selling ads to sexual slavers. And I consider the oldest profession to be legitimate. I believe that it should be legal almost everywhere, with reasonable regulations and restrictions. If it sells advertising to brothels, in any of their several forms, that itself is not a problem.

I might add that our capitalist society does not provide jobs or any other means of support for large numbers of our population. Note that corporations, however profitable, do not accept any responsibility to employ anyone.  Corporations have been known to lay off hundreds and even tens of thousands of workers, even while making record profits, with little regard for the effect on their lives. And the clear trend in industry is to replace jobs for people with machines. Millions of people have virtually no other options. If our society cannot (or will not) provide decent jobs for everyone, we must permit some alternative to death by exposure and starvation.

That safety net is, as often as not, prostitution.

If men can be permitted to KILL for a living, women should be permitted to **** for a living!

I for one would rather our society guarantee decent jobs, or at least incomes, to EVERYONE.

Right ON, Richard, my thoughts exactly.

All I'd say is, the notion of a 'job' has been collectively drilled into our brains, to the point where we think we're owed one, it's all we should get an education for, etc. It'd be a glorious day when most of us can work for ourselves, using our individual talents, and not put our fate in the hands of some CEO.

Best, KK

Ken,
You hit upon a point I'd have made if it would not have stretched the topic a bit. Capitalist and corporate business has practically eliminated every other option besides working for THEM.

Our entire society has been engineered by corporate capital for its own benefit, i.e. that of the owning class, frequently at great expense to labor. A key strategy, to keep most people under the thumb of big business, has been to take away our tools, and remove us from the land. Whole populations have been shifted off the land, and into cities and suburbs, for jobs, jobs which are often inadequite, unreliable and frequently non-existant. Farm life was hard work, but it generally provided healthy, reliable options for people and families.

In good times, a farmer could make some money and get ahead. In bad times, he could at least hunt, grow some food and do some craft work to make ends meet. And of course the efficiencies of modern manufacturing make it very difficult to do any kind of craft, i.e. small scale business of any sort, competetively.  Now that we all live in tiny houses on tiny lots (or in tiny apartments), without land for gardens or workspace, our only option is a job, which corporations, and society, steadfastly refuse to guarantee. In fact, what they DO guarantee is that millions of people will be denied any job, or an adequite job, along with the basic necessities of life.

And there are other structures that have been developed only recently, by corporate capitalism, which benefit the owning class at everyone else's expense. For example, the availability of easy credit has driven up the cost of basic essentials, including automobiles and homes (while enriching the lenders).

If it were not for easy credit, cars and houses would not be so expensive (or at least, less expensive options would be available). And if it were not for the auto industry, public transportation would be everywhere, with pollution and expenses much reduced. The auto industry deliberately destroyed public transportation, you know, in order to better enrich themselves.

If it were not for medical insurance, medical care, albeit perhaps a less advanced, technological form of medical care, would be much more affordable, and more equally available to everyone. And if it were not for big industry shifting its cost of waste disposal and other environmental impacts off themselves and onto the public, by polluting the land, air and water, we might not need that medical care quite so much. Now the public will be forced to pay to stop rapid climate change, caused by corporate business, that is, if it can be stopped at all.

Sure, it creates wealth for the relative few, but still, most of the major problems of our society can be attributed to our unregulated, irresponsible and greedy capitalist system. I have to question why labor would EVER agree to a ruthlessly exploitive system, where most of the value of their very own labor is permitted to go to the few who have managed to position themselves on top. The answer of course is in the relentless capitalist propaganda that has been rained down on us for close to a century.

People have been TAUGHT that they do not deserve the full benefit of their own labor. And by that I mean OURS. In fact, LABOR is the source of all wealth, NOT capital, per se. Without labor, money just sits in the bank creating nothing. Labor should get to keep a bigger share of the wealth it creates. In doing so, most of the major problems of our society, from poverty to crime, would be solved. The solution is bottom-up, not top-down!

It may not be what you meant, but in MHO, in THIS system, if we are civilized, and since almost every other alternative has been deliberately and systematically eliminated by those in power, we SHOULD at least be guaranteed a job!

Otherwise, I think we should all look toward socialism, which could be a much better system for most people, and certainly for those at the bottom in THIS system.
Rick

PS: I KNOW it's not quite this simple, but it's ALMOST this simple!

Katherine, I bet there are days when you wonder, why did I start investigating and writing about human trafficking and the business of sex? Many of the comments here must make you think that perhaps, you should investigate how plastic bags kill sea birds in the south Pacific.

Keep at it and more and more people will see that there is no way to defend enslaving people to make money off of serving them up to mosty men who because they can't handle being a modern human, seek false "comfort" and "release" from that stress in paying for sex they cannot get for just being lovable.

There, that ought to fuel another dozen or so justifications for facilitating slavery.

But keep at it anyway, all the shouting will bring some to a new understanding about modern slavery and will help to end it.

Jobs which pays less than a livable wage, is also slavery. I am against any form of being indetured to another. This is the right time to look upon employers who pay less then the cost of the basics rent, repairs, health care, utilities, transportation, and the one and only thing incorporated into the current poverty level,-FOOD.

WE should not just look with disgust, at the sex trade trafficker. But the CEO of top American corps., making $360,000 a year, paying $7. an hour to their workers, should make us upset.

It costs roughly $19.40 an hour to pay all the unavoidable bills of life.  Yet Obama is calling for an increase to $9.40 an hour?  Not Right.  Decent wage's means being able to pay bills, repair the washer, plus have entertainment, or even a small vacation. Exxon and Walmart CEO's should be considered, as scumly as traffickers.  We should honor those who pay a wage which accounts for a modest living.