Sex Trafficking and Prostitution
101 Things to Be for Halloween Other Than a Pimp
Published October 27, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT
Here's how my Halloween usually goes: go out with friends, run into a guy dressed as a pimp, proceed to corner the pimp and explain why his costume is inappropriate and offensive. Yep -- I'm pretty much a buzz-kill. I would love to have a conflict-free Halloween this year (and one where my friends don't ditch me), but that's only going to happen if no one dresses up in costumes that glamorize pimping. Pimps are people who exploit women. Period. Yet Halloween glamorizes pimps like no other holiday. Maybe it's because their stereotypical attire makes an outlandish costume. Maybe it's because they are an easily recognizable part of American culture. There have been pimp costumes available on the Internet for a long time, but now even your dog can be a pimp. And as Kat over at Polaris Project points out, so can your pumpkin.
I know coming up with a Halloween costume is hard, so to help you out, I've provided 101 ideas for cosutmes that don't glorify criminals who rape women and sell them like objects. If you're thinking of dressing like a pimp, pick one of these instead, especially if you live in the DC area. Because you don't want to meet me and my feminist literature in a dark alley on Halloween night.
101 Things to Be for Halloween that Aren't a Pimp
- NASCAR driver
- Wizard with a pegleg
- Amelia Earheart
- Dinosaur
- Cat in a litterbox
- Zombie lumberjack
- Your mom
- Flapper
- Harlem Globetrotter
- Wall-E
Man Sells Foster Daughter Into Prostitution
Published October 26, 2009 @ 01:24PM PT
Pimps can be strangers to their child victims, but they are often someone the victim trusts, like a boyfriend, a parent, or a family member. In a case out of Maryland recently, Shelby Lewis sold his 12-year-old foster daughter, along with three other girls, into prostitution -- the price of the "rent" he charged them for living in his home. This case is an excellent case study of what domestic minor sex trafficking looks like in the U.S., since it has a number of very common factors present.
- First, the victim was a part of the foster care system. It's common for American girls who are eventually trafficked by pimps to have been in foster care at one point in their lives. The connection between foster care and trafficking is due to both the vulnerability of young people without stable homes and the dysfunction of many foster care systems in the U.S.
Second, the pimp was someone the victim knew as a protector. While pimps can be strangers, they often approach victims first as boyfriends, friends, stepfathers, family members, etc. They groom the victim to rely on them and then claim, as Lewis did, that the cost of their protection and love is prostitution.
Third, the victims started in their early teens. Lewis first began pimping his foster daughter out when she was 12. He also sold three other girls, who he began exploiting at 13, 14, and 16. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12-14 in the U.S., so the ages of the victims in this case are typical.
Fourth, one of his victims was registered with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It's not unusual for children who are reported missing, either as runaways or as kidnapping victims, end up in the hands of pimps like Lewis.
Lastly, child pornography makes an appearance in this case, as it does in many others. Lewis had pictures of his victims tied to beds in sexual poses at his apartment. Pimps can earn money by selling pornographic images of the girls they exploit in addition to selling the girls themselves.
While one of these factors might not be present in all cases of domestic minor sex trafficking, they are certainly present in a number of them. This case is an example of how the issue of child trafficking in the U.S. is deeply connected to the need for reform of the foster care system and better education for girls. The questions this case begs are much broader than just those related to human trafficking: Why are foster youths so susceptible to trafficking? Why are men buying girls so young for sex? It's a reminder that we must always view trafficking within the context of social issues pimps utilize to help them traffic girls.
Photo credit: EOS Cameroun
The Myth of Initial Consent
Published October 25, 2009 @ 09:00AM PT
No one can consent to slavery. Period. But there is a myth that if a trafficked person initially agreed to be in the country or industry that they were eventually enslaved in, that initial consent somehow mitigates the fact that they are being forced to work against their will. Despite what else they may have consented to, no one consents to slavery.
This myth most commonly manifests itself with victims trafficked into prostitution. Let's say Katya is Ukranian and is looking for a way to support her family. She goes to an international job broker who tells her she can make serious money in stripping and prostitution in Jamaica at the clubs and resorts. They discuss the terms, and she signs a contract that states she will choose her own hours, her own clients, and be able to set the prices for her sex acts within a certain range. She'll also give 10% of what she earns to the company. Katya is fine with working in the commercial sex industry and engaging in prostitution under these terms, and plans to save the money she makes in Jamaica for a year and then return to Ukraine. When Katya arrives in Jamaica, she is met by Sam who takes her to a brothel. There, Sam takes her passport, punches her in the face, and rapes her. He tells her she must give half of what she earns from stripping and prostitution to him, but can keep the other half. If Katya tries to refuse a buyer or take a night off, Sam beats her. He won't return her passport, so she is unable to leave the country. Katya never thought prostitution would be like this. Is Katya a trafficking victim?
Yes. The fact that she agreed to work in prostitution voluntarily does not mean she is not a slave now. Katya consented to a work situation that included commercial sex (even illegally), but one where she was free to refuse or leave. The reality for Katya was that she was not free to leave and was held in prostitution by violence. She was not allowed to keep the money she earned or make choices about who she provided sexual services to.
Here's another example. Miguel is approached by Andres in his town in Peru and offered a job picking asparagus about 100 miles away. The Andres tells Miguel he will have to pay off a $500 debt for the cost of travel to the farm and room and board while he works there, but that the debt should be paid off within a few weeks, and Miguel can keep the rest of his wages for the season. Andres knows Miguel's cousin, so he seems trustworthy, and Miguel takes the job. When they get to the farm, the men are told that the trip was more expensive than they thought and they each now must work off $800. A few weeks later, Miguel asks when he will start to receive his wages and is told that the price of food has increased, so they now owe a debt of $1000 for room and board. Eventually, Miguel and some other men demand their wages and threaten to leave or go to the police. Andres refuses and threatens to shoot them if they go to the police. He tells them he will kill their children if they don't keep working. Is Miguel a trafficking victim?
Yes. Miguel agreed to take on a certain amount of debt, but that debt increased unfairly and with no explanation. When he tried to take his wages or leave the situation, he and his family were threatened with violence. Even if a person agrees to pay off a debt, they have not consented to debt bondage. Even though Miguel initially consented to work for Andres, Andres used force, coercion, or deception to keep him there, thus trafficking him.
Photo credit: Robyn Gallegher
Why Human Trafficking is Not a Hoax
Published October 22, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT
Every few years, some big study tries to find instances of human trafficking and fails to find them in any significant number. And every time this happens, fiscal conservatives and others come out of the woodwork and claim that the failed study is proof that human trafficking exists only in the imaginations of liberals, evangelicals, federal agents, social service providers, feminists, police officers, organized criminals, immigration officials, parents... you get the idea. Human trafficking was not a hoax before the recent failed study in the UK, and it won't be a hoax after the failure blows over.
The Pentameter study in the UK sought to root out human trafficking in the commercial sex industry by assigning 55 units of police officers to investigate human trafficking. And despite the fact that author Nick Davies begins his article in The Guardian claiming they found not a single trafficker, they actually found several, five of whom were eventaully convicted. But they didn't find the broad and sweeping numbers of victims that they originally thought they would. Is it because there really were only five traffickers on all the UK? Probably not. There are a multitude of reasons this particular study might have failed: the police didn't know what to look for, the victims lied, the traffickers moved the victims before getting caught, the police looked in the wrong places, etc. and so forth.
But the reasons why this study may have failed are not nearly as important as the many, many other studies that have shown human trafficking does exist and in significant numbers. The UN just estimated that 270,000 victims live in the EU right now. The U.S. State Department ballparks the number of individuals trafficked globally at 800,000 each year, with 17,000 of those being brought to the U.S. The International Labor Organization has also weighed in, claiming 2.4 million trafficking victims around the world. I could go on, but that would be quite boring to read. The point is, sometimes studies fail, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Many issues, like global warming, that were once denounced as liberal conspiracy based a some flawed or failed studies have been proven to be real and dangerous phenomenon.
The field of human trafficking desperately needs more studies, sounder methodologies, and better statistics so we can appropriately address what's actually happening. I don't know anyone who works in this area who disagrees that we need to know more. But we need most is an actual field of academic literature on this subject. Right now we have one study that says human trafficking is real and one that calls it a hoax. We have one estimate that there are 27 million moder-day slaves in the world and one that says 500,000. When the information is so different, it's almost impossible to make policy decisions based on it.
For the time being, here are my answers. If you are person who loves math, statistics, and research methodologies, please go into this field. If you already in this field, do more and better research. And if you are an activist for this cause, please don't give up on the very real victims out there while the academics get their act together.
Photo credit: photogirl17
Mainstream Media Calls Teen Sex Trafficking Victim a Criminal
Published October 19, 2009 @ 04:44PM PT
Human trafficking is not black and white, and all those different shades of nuance require the media to use that gray matter that fills up their heads. Unfortunately, the mainstream media often has their heads so far up their asses that actual analysis becomes a difficult, smelly task. Take the recent case of a Phoenix, AZ teen who was sentenced to three years in jail for soliciting other underage girls into prostitution. The twist that the media missed? She was convicted of the crime that she was a victim of herself.
The basic story is that Jazmine was 17 years old and in prostitution herself when she began recruiting other teen girls into the lifestyle. All minors under 18 in prostitution are legally human trafficking victims, so Jazmine was one of them. She and her 16-year-old friend arranged dates for girls as young as 14, charging as little as $50 per sex act. She got caught, was tried as a criminal as opposed to being treated as a victim, and now must spend three years behind bars and live with a criminal record. Jazmine's case is not an easy one. Yes, she knowingly recruited teen girls into prostitution, though it was against the law. But she was also a victim of teen prostitution herself. These girls weren't people she had physical, social, or economic power over and were exploiting; they were her peers. While Jazmine's actions may have been illegal, her circumstances are completely different than the more common situation -- an adult man forces or coerces a young girl into prostitution.
The case may be murky, but what it has made plexi-glass clear is how little the mainstream media understands child trafficking in prostitution. I would bet my hefty blogger salary that Jazmine was recruited into prostitution herself, probably by an older man like a family member or boyfriend. But no mention is made in any media coverage I found of that likelihood. Perhaps Jazmine was protecting the person who introduced her to prostitution. Perhaps no one thought to ask her how she got started. But the truth is that young teen girls don't just decide to go into prostitution -- they almost always have some grooming.
But perhaps the greatest failure of the mainstream media in the coverage of this case was that they published the photos and full names of Jazmine and her friend. And they did it a long time before any conviction took place. Regardless of what these girls have been accused of or even what they are guilty of, they are and were first victims of the crime they perpetrated. The fact that they did something illegal doesn't diminish their right to some protection as victims, part of which is the privacy of not having their photos plastered across television and the Internet. Living through the experience of being in prostitution as a teen is enough of a burden without spending the rest of your life fighting that stigma publicly. I'll buy the argument that despite her victimization, Jazmine deserves some level of punishment for her crime, but she also deserves a chance to put this is behind her. She's a new mother, and she deserves a fresh start for her and her family.
The cynical parts of me wonder if Jazmine were whiter or thinner or from a wealthier background, would she have been so disregarded as a victim and cast as a criminal? The really, really cynical parts of me wonder if the mainstream media is so clueless about child trafficking in the U.S., that even a change in race, appearance, or money wouldn't have helped her? But the optimist in me gives those cynical parts a solid kick in the shins and reminds me that every time the mainstream media misses the truth due to Headstuckinass Syndrome, there is an opportunity for education.
Photo credit: speednutdave
Supreme Court to Hear "S&M Svengali" Sex Trafficking Case
Published October 16, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT
When she took the job, Sotomayor might not have known she's be talking about whips and handcuffs at work. But that's what will happen when the issue of human trafficking with be put before the Supreme Court in early 2010. And how does human trafficking make it's first appearance at the SCOTUS? In the form of a case that involves S&M, slavery, and some other pretty unsavory sexual stuff. Glenn Marcus, the man dubbed the "S&M Svengali", was convicted of sex trafficking in 2001 and has appealed his case all the way up the legal food chain. It's a case that has potential ramifications for trafficking victims everywhere.
Here's what happened: Marcus had an S&M-themed website in the late 1990s which featured photos of women who were his "slaves" undergoing various levels of physical abuse. He met a woman who court documents just call "Jodi," and she agreed to be on the website. At this point, two stories diverge. Jodi claims Marcus took the relationship too far -- that he forced her to do things she didn't want to do and then write about them for the site. She couldn't escape, and was effectively a slave in real life, although she started out only portraying one on a website. Marcus, on the other hand, claims that everything was consensual and part of Jodi's employment contract. Apparently, even the parts where he carved the word "slave" into her stomach with a knife, shaved her head, and whipped her brutally were part of her contract.
The reason SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case is that the abuse Marcus inflicted on Jodi took place between 1999 and 2001. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the law under which Marcus was prosecuted and convicted, was passed in 2000. Marcus's lawyers claim that Marcus's behavior was so different before and after October 2000, that the jury may have only convicted him on evidence prior to the passage of the law. Even if that is the case, was none of his behavior illegal before? I'm pretty sure carving a word into someone's stomach against their will has never been ok.
I'm worried about the affect this case will have on the abolitionist movement for two reasons. One, I think the S&M connection will only confuse SCOTUS's understanding of sex trafficking. Human trafficking and S&M, with the notable exception of this case, are not really connected. Sex trafficking is not about the sort of activities which take place between the victim and perpetrator, but rather the victim's consent to the situation and ability to get out of it. I'm worried that the presence of S&M will bring the court's focus on the wrong set of issues. Secondly, this case could have an impact for victims who were trafficked before 2000. It is dangerous to set a legal precedent where being trafficked before 2000 and after 2000 (instead of just after) may weaken a case.
I'll be following this case closely and will keep you updated on what our good friends on the SCOTUS decide. Hopefully, they're be able to look past the chain-mail-and-leather packaging on this case and see the central issues beneath -- abuse, consent, and slavery.
Photo credit: laura padgett
Orange County Seeks Happy Ending to Massage Parlor Ads
Published October 14, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT
The Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force can't get a decent massage. Maybe that's because the pages of their newspaper, and newspapers nationwide including the Washington Post, are full of ads for "massage parlors" featuring partially clothed, unlicensed female "masseuses." It's one of the most transparent fronts for prostitution and human trafficking still legally advertised, and people are increasingly calling for an end to the ads.
One of the beautiful parts of the American justice system is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same holds true for business activities -- they are presumed legal until they are proven illegal. It's legal to post an add promising massages by women in fishnets who just turned 18. It's legal to cover these ads with non-nude sexual imagery aimed at an exclusively male audience. But it's not legal (in most of the U.S.) to run a brothel and it's not legal to sell trafficked women anywhere. So how do you know which massage business are legal and which are illegal? Enter, law enforcement. It's their job to determine if a seemingly-legal business is actually a front for something illegal. A favorite tool of law enforcement to accomplish this is conducting raids in massage parlors they find suspicious, with results varying from ecstatic thanks from newly freed trafficking victims to deportations of undocumented women voluntarily in prostitution to significant abuse by the police. It is certainly a flawed system, but one which does achieve its aims much of the time.
There is one element which I often find missing when we talk about the connection between massage parlors, prostitution, and human trafficking: common sense. Let's face it -- many of these ads are painfully obvious as covers for illegal commercial sex. I think we often get so caught up in legal definitions, we forget to use our common sense as a test for what's legitimate and what's not. Legitimate massage ads tend to focus on their licensed therapists, spa services, relaxing atmosphere, hygiene standards, and quality of service. Illegitimate massage ads tend to focus on the age or race of their masseuses, the "eroticness" of the massage, and men as a target audience. Sure, some of these ads are more nuanced and deceptive, but many of them look and feel obviously illegitimate. If the common sense test comes out with a score of sketchy, then the trickier question becomes whether a massage parlor is an illegal brothel full of trafficking victims and/or children or women who have voluntarily entered prostitution.
It's important to approach this intersection between massage parlors, prostitution, and human trafficking with a solid knowledge of legal codes and a strategic plan to work with law enforcement. But it's also important for activists to use their common sense about what is being advertised in their newspapers and speak out about it. Police can raid only so many massage parlor brothels. But when newspapers have gotten enough complaints from readers about running these ads in the past, they've stopped. And no advertising means less business for pimps and less incentive for traffickers.
Photo credit: thomaswanhoff
