1

Joe, you're right. This is quite ridiculous. The implications of this statement are astounding:
"For them (faith-based groups), commercial sex is far worse than other exploitative work poor people do--forced or not."
Here's an interesting link to a 30-second quick video of a man who can make the statement conclusively due to his work with IJM (www.ijm.org):
http://www.ijm.org/NETCOMMUNITY/page.redir?&target=http%3a%2f%2f216.26.190.51%2fIJMvideo%2fWhatisSexTrafficking5.wmv&srcid=178

For anyone interested in real data, here's a great resource from the University of Pennsylvania (beware--it can be quite technical):
http://caster.ssw.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC_Files/CSEC_Bib_August_2001.pdf

From Page 1:
"The precise number of sexually exploited children is unknown. However, the United Nations Children's Fund estimates that more than a hundred million children worldwide are employed as "sex workers," i.e., as prostitutes, as subjects of pornography, or both (Unicef, 1997). In addition, hundreds of thousands of children shuttle the planet each year as part of a well-concealed network operated by international traffickers in children for sex. The number of sexually exploited children in the United States also is unknown but conservative estimates place their numbers at between 300,000 and 500,000."

2

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is actually worse than we all think. An anecdote...

In 2001 I was the President of our Local Union AFGE 2805. Back then we were still the Department of Justice, INS (Which no longer exists). Each Monday morning we met with our District Director and she got an update on what is happening in all the different fields. She invited me as the Local President as a courtesy. One of the Departments was the Criminal Investigators. If you are unfimiliar with how government works, each branch pretty much has its own Criminal Investigators. INS, Customs, the Post Office, pretty much everyone has some form of plain clothesed Investigator unit.

The most recent update from our Criminal Investigator Chief was on a local Child Prostitute ring here in San Diego. They were staking out the house that was selling the kids from a Church parking lot. The Pastor of the Church knew what was going on and came out to the Van and offered to allow our officers to use his Church. The update was a discussion on whether or not we should be using the Church for the operation.

Our District Director was very upset. Why didn't we just go in there and bust them? Why were we waiting? Kids were being used for sex!!!

As horrible as it is, it had to be explained to her that without enough evidence to present in court, the perps would all get away and do no jail time. Better to get evidence to put them away for a good long time.

The point i'm trying to make here is we bust up child prostitution rings down here in San Diego all the time, you just don't hear about it on the news. It's sad, it's gross and it is being defended by the left. Sickening.

3

Nathan complains that too much is made about “sex slaves” and that “the limited evidence that exists suggests sex work is not the most common type of forced labor, and even though most immigrants who work as prostitutes do so voluntarily.” How does she know this is true?

I hate to do this, but I have to say this: Nathan's dead right: sex work is by no means the most common type of forced labor.

The most common type of forced labor is that everyday job you and I have in a very tight labor market assuming you're not independently wealthy.

I'm not wealthy, but when it's this time in the morning, and I've got a grueling day of travel ahead of me, and nobody's ringing my phone offering me $40,000 more a year for similar work or better, you better believe my labor feels forced.

4

There is another angle here - "Sexual Panic" is the reaction of the left whenever any tenent of their antinomian sexual mores are questioned. Hence their efforts to legitimize every sexual practice and expression. Putting prostitution on the same level as agricultural work is part of this.

5

Mumon, I'm going to hope that your comment above was an attempt at humor.

6

mumon--While your labor may feel forced, it is not. Nobody is going to bust your kneecaps or splash acid in your face (or worse) if you leave. Even though I disagree with you most of the time, you are usually reasonable so I will assume that the implied moral equivalence between forced prostitution and your dead-end job (going by your description) is accidental.

Just a thought, if you don't like your job, upgrade your training and find another. Yeah, it is a pain, but so what? What's the alternative, another 20 years in a job you hate? In my case, I didn't earn my BS in Computer Engineering until I was 35 (I was on the 20 year plan, but finished in 17), and am currently completing my MS, so I know it is possible and worth the struggle.

7

As to your apology that sometimes you can only respond with bombastic over the top remarks to some opinions ... Sometimes people write things which are just so wrong its harder to know where to begin than if they are just a little mistaken.

8

Oh, there's nothing new to see here. The article is just another example of the left's obsession with being counterintuitive. Why is being counterintuitive cool? Consider this example...

When Einstein initially published his theory, physics recoiled. It was, at the time, completely counterintuitive. Mass increases with velocity? Absurd. Obviously, it turned out that he was more nearly correct than the venerable Sir Isaac. Hence, we have posters of Albert with his bad haircut on dormitory walls, but no posters of ol' Sir I.

Academics and "thinkers" have loved the concept of counterintuitivity ever since. Think about it. You propose a notion that flies in the face of civilization. People react. Time passes. It turns out you were right!! Your face gets put on a poster.

So, we get thoughts like those expressed in the NYT article that mused - if crime is down, why are so many people in jail? Clearly, the "causes" of crime are many. For instance, some people have stuff and other people don't, and some of the people who don't have stuff also have an aversion to work (like, say, mumon). So, rather than being "forced" to pick broccoli (because they have no meaningful skills, having been taught that "self-esteem" is both necessary and sufficient to become rich), they hold you up at gunpoint, shoot you a couple of times (insuring that you will be in pain and regularly visiting a hospital for the remainder of your probably truncated life), and take your stuff. But when we put people with those tendencies in a cage and isolate them from working people, crime goes down! But, counterintuitively, removing them from the streets has nothing to do with crime. The real reasons are that criminals don't think well enough of themselves and they don't have enough stuff. I know, I know... that sounds stupid and counterintuitive. But to really sound stupid and counterintuitive, you have to be really, really smart. And since being smart means you are right... well, you get the picture.

So, if I buy a maid and rape her at will, the sex is just a fringe benefit. The real crime is underpayment for dusting and sweeping. I know it seems counterintuitive, but I never really considered the sexual aspect until she was leaning over the coffee table dusting. Never entered my mind. It's not as if I bought a sex slave who could also throw the pizza boxes out.

I don't understand why you guys don't get it. Yes, it may be counterintuitive, but that's because you're all blinded by religious fervor. You see, I'm a clear-thinking, nunaced kinda guy. So much better than you. I think my left profile will be better for the poster.

9

Chris Lutz:

No, not humourous. Just a really stressful patch of work...

Yeah, yeah, I hate forced prostitution as much as the next guy- and I detest the fact that young boys are being forced into that work in Iraq.

But I really do have a point: unless people are free to do the best work they can, for everyone's well-being, - then they're not free; ipso facto they are in forced labor.

10

Yeah, yeah, I hate forced prostitution as much as the next guy- and I detest the fact that young boys are being forced into that work in Iraq.

So you think that forced prostitution in Iraq is worse than in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, or elsewhere in the Middle East? Must be because after some mental gymnastics worthy of Paul Hamm, you can blame it on Chimpy McHitlerBurton and his evil cabal of neo-cons. Sorry to be snarky, but this moral equivalence is really troubling. Forced prostitution is only really bad if I can blame Bush, otherwise it's comparable to my crappy job.

But I really do have a point: unless people are free to do the best work they can, for everyone's well-being, - then they're not free; ipso facto they are in forced labor.

No, you really don't. If you don't like your job, QUIT. Find another job, or start a business and create your own job. This idea that you are only free if you have your ideal, perfect job is a very childish attitude. In the adult world, people understand that a job isn't fun and fulfilling all the time and if it was it wouldn't be called a job, it would be called a vacation and you wouldn't get paid for it. Really, if a job was fun and fulfilling all the time, would they have to pay you to do it?

11

I wold suggest that the key question at hand is that of agency: to what degree do these (illegal) immigrants have control over their situation? to what degree are they agents? to what degree does your employment situation render you relatively defenceless to abuse (i.e. a loss of agency)?

Joe's admitted bombast only appears to confirm Nathan's point, that evangelicals & the government have focused the question of forced labor narrowly on that of sexual trafficking.

Moreover in Joe's and other's comments there seems to be an equation that all prostitution is by definition "forced," that all prostitutes lack agency. Nathan's article is hardly the first to note that some women (and often their families) choose to participate in the sex trade, and so the question becomes to what extent is this coercive? (Note: the fact that they "choose" this as the best of a bad circumstance does not mean that we dismiss it as morally neutral, only that it is not in the same category as forced labor).

Likewise, there has been some cackling about the combination of work with forced sex on the side, and Nathan's point that this really isn't a case of sexual trafficking. I agree. In the workplace we normally call that sexual abuse (C'mhere honey, maybe there's something I can do about that raise...). The problem is that the worker lacks agency, and so has no where to turn when the abuse occurs. It shouldn't be a surprise that where workers lack agency sexual abuse naturally follows -- the American experience with chattel slavery should be proof of that.

Nathan's point is that the focus on sexual issues obscures the larger picture of forced labor. (And btw she does provide some data that the issue of forced labor is larger than the sex trade). While we may be scandalized at the former, if all we do is focus on that we stand in danger of missing the Bible's clear teaching that laborers are always to be treated justly (and paid fairly). We do ourselves and our witness an injustice if we turn this into labor v. sex trade-off.

12

Ironically it was not that long ago the NY Times ran a long magazine article alleging a huge number of 'sex slaves' in the US. The article was alarming but quickly debunked since nearly none of the numbers could be substantiated.

The author is probably correct in that most sex workers undertake the job with more free will than other types of workers. Quite frankly it is quite difficult and expensive to force a large number of people to have sex totally against their will. Also quite frankly customers will notice the end product. Many customers of prostitutes will be put out of the mood if they thought they were actually raping women (not all, of course, but more than a few). The sex slaver would have to have a lot of power to not only force people into slavery but put them in such terror as to maintain the facade for customers.

On the flip side do you have any idea where your broccoli comes from? Would you even have the slightest idea if it was picked by happy workers with 401K's and health plans or terrified children being lashed by a bullwhip?

13

You don't seem to have understood the article. The author simply doesn't say much of what you say she does, and you don't seem to see what she does say.

Nowhere does the author say that the harms of all forms of forced labor are equivalent. (At one point she says the terror of being held captive for forced labor is the same in different cases, but that's only part of the story.) She did not say that being raped by an employer is better than being forced to do involuntary sex work; she said that it's not the same as being an involuntary prostitute (which, in fact, is true). And labor organizing for sex workers is a miniscule part of the article, mentioned in only one paragraph (plus two sentences) of an article that runs close to 3,500 words.

The author's points are simple enough if you just read the article fairly:

• "Trafficking" for sex work involves many women who choose to work as prostitutes, and not nearly as many "sex slaves" as is often claimed
• Workers who are "trafficked" are far more often coerced into non-sex labor
• The attention paid to trafficking focuses almost exclusively on coerced sex, even though that involves only a minority of coerced workers and even a minority of sex workers
• Christian evangelicals have attempted to define "trafficking" both to equate voluntary and involuntary sex work and to eliminate non-sex labor entirely (Christopher Smith wrote a bill that explicitly did both those things)
• The Bush White House has, in its typically counterproductive fashion, begun withholding support from organizations that work to protect and empower prostitutes and demanding that they sign anti-prostitution statements, making it impossible to help the people the Bushies are supposedly concerned about
• The "Trafficking Victims Protection Act" has been all but useless, in part because officials insist on deporting most of the workers who come to their attention and in part because the problem has been overhyped far beyond the reality of the situation (in 4 years, with 20,000 special visas available for trafficked workers, the government has issued barely 1,000 of them - the vast majority to non-sex workers)
• A large percentage of "trafficked" workers do not want to be "rescued", especially if that means deportation; they voluntarily entered their situations (even accepting large debts to their traffickers) in order to earn more money in industrialized countries (especially the US) than they can at home

Her conclusions are simple as well: that a reasonable view of "trafficking" would recognize that it mostly involves household and low-skill manual labor, not sex work; that a large percentage of "trafficked" workers (in sex and non-sex labor) voluntarily sought illegal immigration and were not kidnapped; and that there is a difference between voluntarily seeking work (including prostitution) and being coerced into it. Those conclusions seem inescapable from the facts of the case as she presents it - and she cites data to support those facts.

She clearly favors legalizing voluntary prostitution under conditions that empower women to control their own work lives, and she favors non-punitive enforcement of trafficking laws for voluntary workers so that they won't be coerced by traffickers they have paid to bring them in. Those aren't unusual positions, or particularly radical ones.

Nothing about the article has much to do with libertarianism, and very little has to do with labor organizing. The basic point is that the "trafficking" problem has been misrepresented, in large part due to the influence of conservatives who can't tear their eyes away from the horror of "sex slavery" long enough to notice that (a) most "trafficked labor" isn't slavery, and (b) most of it isn't sex. Whatever you think the right policy position is, it hardly seems controversial to suggest that we should understand the problem accurately first.

14

Kevin,

"Trafficking" for sex work involves many women who choose to work as prostitutes, and not nearly as many "sex slaves" as is often claimed

No one disputes that some women “choose” to work as prostitutes. The difference, however, lies in how much choice the women had in making that decision. The second claim is unsupported and an assertion that contradicts numerous detailed studies.

Workers who are "trafficked" are far more often coerced into non-sex labor

Nathan is trying to make it a case of sex labor between non-sex labor as if the real problem was the labor. A slave is a slave. What “labor” they are being required to perform is secondary to such issues as the fact that they are being forced into it and that they are often sexually abused.

The attention paid to trafficking focuses almost exclusively on coerced sex, even though that involves only a minority of coerced workers and even a minority of sex workers

Nathan presents an unsupported assertion as fact. It is hard to dispute her when she presents only opinion.

Christian evangelicals have attempted to define "trafficking" both to equate voluntary and involuntary sex work and to eliminate non-sex labor entirely (Christopher Smith wrote a bill that explicitly did both those things)

What a minute. In the point just above this one you noticed that Nathan says “the attention paid to trafficking focuses almost exclusively on coerced sex.” Then why are evangelicals like Smith writing legislation to do away with non-sex trafficking?

The Bush White House has, in its typically counterproductive fashion, begun withholding support from organizations that work to protect and empower prostitutes and demanding that they sign anti-prostitution statements, making it impossible to help the people the Bushies are supposedly concerned about.

Yeah, the evil Bushies are against organizations that don’t do enough to “empower” child prostitution. As a recent article in the liberal American Prospect noted,

Arnold, the 29-year-old director of Project Hope International, a nonprofit organization committed to assisting survivors of human trafficking, had traveled there to visit with social workers, health-care workers, and others who help prostitutes. It’s exhausting and grim work; many of the prostitutes are children (as young as 6) servicing Western tourists who hang out at the Home Away from Home café and prowl the area for “small-small,” as the young girls are known.

For years, the health-care educators and social workers had worked closely with the children, who are living “by hook or by crook, doing tricks,” says Arnold. They tried to teach the girls how to care for themselves. “They would tell the children, ‘You will get out of this. There’s a way out,’” says Arnold. “‘In the meantime, here’s how to use a condom.’”

Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with giving a six-year-old girl a condom and sending her back out to get raped, but I personally don’t believe that we should be funding such activity.

She clearly favors legalizing voluntary prostitution under conditions that empower women to control their own work lives, and she favors non-punitive enforcement of trafficking laws for voluntary workers so that they won't be coerced by traffickers they have paid to bring them in. Those aren't unusual positions, or particularly radical ones.

No, but they also aren’t liberal positions either. Seriously, when did The Nation start running articles meant for Reason? I realize that the Left has reached a point where anything that involves sex must be legitimized. But I’m still shocked to see such rationalizations for exploitation.

Nothing about the article has much to do with libertarianism, and very little has to do with labor organizing.

What, are you kidding? Legalizing prostitution is not a libertarian position? And I disagree with your point that labor organizing had little to do with the article. Once you get past the primary thesis (Sex slavery is overblown since most women who work as prostitutes do so because they choose such work) the implication is that the only real problem is that prostitution is illegal and doesn’t allow for labor organizing.

Whatever you think the right policy position is, it hardly seems controversial to suggest that we should understand the problem accurately first.

Perhaps if Nathan had presented any actual data to back up her claims then it might have been easier to take it seriously. But all she presented where her unsupported assertions. This is, of course, nothing new for her. She is the same women who defended Arnold Friedman (the father mentioned in the documentary “Capturing the Friedmans”) even though he admitted to being a pedophile and plead guilty to molesting over a dozen boys.

15

The call for actual data should go both ways. If the allagation is that most prostitutes are being coerced shouldn't that be backed up by evidence? Nathan pointed out that the US has a special visa program for such cases but only 1,000 out of 20,000 slots have been taken advantage of...and even there few for true cases of coerced sex traffiking.

Nathan is trying to make it a case of sex labor between non-sex labor as if the real problem was the labor. A slave is a slave. What “labor” they are being required to perform is secondary to such issues as the fact that they are being forced into it and that they are often sexually abused.

this is a odd statement since you began this with a hypothetical asking if your daughter was kidnapped would you rather she be forced to babysit children, pick broccoli or work as a prostitute...clearly implying that forced broccoli pickers are less of a problem than forced prostitutes.

Perhaps you think there is nothing wrong with giving a six-year-old girl a condom and sending her back out to get raped, but I personally don’t believe that we should be funding such activity.

In other words you would see her raped without a condom? The fact is there is a huge amount of suffering in the world and any effort to allieviate it is going to run into the drop in the ocean problem. That condom might keep the girl alive another year which may give her a shot at being saved by another agency or by her own devices.

16

Beautiful. First you take her words out of context (which is apparently only unacceptable when done by folks you disagree with), then you exaggerate their implication, then you demonize all leftists for your own vile creation.

17

I simply don't have the ability to comprehend such callous pseudo-libertarian rubbish could be written, much less write an adequate rebuttal against it.

"There are ideas so stupid only an Intellectual could possibly believe them."
-- George Orwell

18

If this is the debate, then let's see what the State Department has to say about prostitution.

PROSTITUTION AND SEX TRAFFICKING

The U.S. Government adopted a strong position against legalized prostitution in a December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive based on evidence that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and fuels trafficking in persons.

Prostitution and related activities, including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels, fuel the growth of modern-day slavery by providing a façade behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate. Where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery.

Of the estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people trafficked across international borders annually, 80 percent of victims are female, and up to 50 percent are children. Hundreds of thousands of these women and children are used in prostitution each year.

Women and Children Want to Escape Prostitution
The vast majority of women in prostitution do not want to be there. Few seek it out or choose it, and most are desperate to leave it. A 2003 study in the scientific Journal of Trauma Practice found that 89 percent of women in prostitution want to escape prostitution. Children are also trapped in prostitution—despite the fact that a number of international covenants and protocols impose upon state parties an obligation to criminalize the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Prostitution Is Inherently Demeaning and Harmful
Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60 to 75 percent of women in prostitution were raped, 70 to 95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans and victims of state-organized torture.

Regulation
State attempts to regulate prostitution by introducing medical check-ups or licenses do not address the core problem: the routine abuse and violence that form the prostitution experience and brutally victimize those caught in its netherworld. Prostitution leaves women and children physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually devastated. Recovery takes years, even decades—often, the damages can never be undone.

Taken from: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/46606.htm

19

Joe Carter:

No one disputes that some women “choose” to work as prostitutes. The difference, however, lies in how much choice the women had in making that decision.

No one disuptes that some people:

• choose to serve in the military

• choose to work in Wal-Mart
• choose to work as children picking broccoli
• choose to work in meat-packing plants with little or no health or disability benefits

The difference lies in how much choice they have in making that decision...

Really, Joe, while I generally have sympathy for your position vis-a-vis sex wokers (but actually not entirely- I think legalization and regulation of prostitution might reduce harm overall), I also think that if you, as a religious person, are going to address exploited people, your tent for exploited people ought to be a big one, no?

Child labor is an awful thing. Prisoners doing slave labor is an awful ting. These things are unimaginable, in fact to me. But they point to a further moral value: why do we do what we do? Why do we make what we make?

If we are slaves to the idea of a market, are we not still slaves?

Luckily, my work although stressful, is often interesting and provides for my family. Others cannot say that. And that's a huge moral issue, too.

So what say you?

20

JOE: Nathan is trying to make it a case of sex labor between non-sex labor as if the real problem was the labor. A slave is a slave. What “labor” they are being required to perform is secondary to such issues as the fact that they are being forced into it and that they are often sexually abused.

That's precisely Nathan's point.

The "trafficking" problem is systematically portrayed as one of women and children kidnapped and imprisoned as forced sex slaves - but the reality is that the large majority of "trafficked" workers are not in sex work and many or most of them were not tricked or coerced, still less kidnapped. The problem is distorted by sex-panicked conservatives who can't get the word "prostitution" out of their heads - and who attempted to explicitly limit the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to exclude non-sex slaves, who did limit it to treat prostitutes and sex slaves identically, and who have pressured prostitutes'-welfare organizations to stop working with prostitutes (!). A more accurate understanding of the problem, and a focus on people who really are coerced, rather than just doing things the right wing disapproves of, would certainly help more people.

ME: The attention paid to trafficking focuses almost exclusively on coerced sex, even though that involves only a minority of coerced workers and even a minority of sex workers

JOE: Nathan presents an unsupported assertion as fact. It is hard to dispute her when she presents only opinion.

She cites a specific, named researcher as the source of her claim that voluntary prostitutes outnumber "sex slaves". She notes that the estimate of the number of "trafficking victims" in the official preamble of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was revised downward 60%
within 3 years even after the definition of "victims" was expanded. She cites a specific, named researcher at UNESCO who claims that the revised estimate is itself still too high. She cites the exact number of people who have applied for "trafficking victims" visas - barely 5% of the total number of trafficking victims the TVPA declares are in the country, and 5% of the total number of visas that are available - and the fact that the majority of them worked in non-sex fields. She cites three different, named sources in victims'-aid agencies in different parts of the country, who all report that the large majority of their clients were forced into domestic labor, not sex work.

JOE: Nathan says “the attention paid to trafficking focuses almost exclusively on coerced sex.” Then why are evangelicals like Smith writing legislation to do away with non-sex trafficking?

They're not. Smith wrote the TVPA to exclude non-sex workers from the definition of "trafficking victims", and to exclude men entirely. Liberals insisted on including all trafficked workers, and men. The Act still treats all immigrant sex workers - voluntary or not - as trafficking victims, however, just as Smith wrote it.

This is simply wrong, and wrong-headed.

It doesn't help to inflate the problem by treating voluntary and coerced workers as identical, or to define them as the same thing and then claim that there are tens of thousands of "sex slaves" when most of those are really voluntary prostitutes who don't want to be "rescued" or sent home. Nathan's claim is that right-wingers are creating a hype over a "sex slave" problem to generate clout to use against prostitution - which certainly seems true when Smith defines them the same way in the "Trafficking" bill, and the Bush administration pressures prostitute-aid organizations to sign anti-prostitution statements on pain of losing their funding.

JOE: I realize that the Left has reached a point where anything that involves sex must be legitimized. But I’m still shocked to see such rationalizations for exploitation.

What "the Left" typically wants is to see a distinction made between voluntary and non-voluntary behavior (sexual and otherwise), and strong autonomy rights attached to the former. There is a range of opinion regarding prostitution among liberals; voluntary sexual behavior obviously is a matter of personal autonomy, but in reality many prostitutes are subject to violence or coercion, so it may not be practically possible to be autonomous in that field. Different people see a different balance between those concerns - but none is so panicked by the thought of sex itself that they regard voluntary prostitution as equivalent to being kidnapped, imprisoned, and raped, nor do they see the mere fact that women actually have sex as evidence by itself that they are being "exploited".

As for libertarianism, the fact that libertarians also approve of something doesn't necessarily make it a "libertarian policy". As for that, many liberals approve of legalizing prostitution (i.e., bringing it into the legal scheme for ordinary work), but strict libertarians generally insist on decriminalizing it (removing all laws, positive or negative, affecting it) - which is a very different policy, and a much less likely one.

21

choose to serve in the military

choose to work in Wal-Mart

choose to work as children picking broccoli

choose to work in meat-packing plants with little or no health or disability benefits

One of these things is not like the others, anybody want to guess which one? Apparently, in Mumon's world children being used as slave labor to pick brocoli (or as sex slaves?) is the moral equivalent of adults making an informed decision to join the military, or work at WalMart or in a meat packing plant.

Mumon--Why is it a huge moral issue that everybody can't have a job that is interesting and provides for a family? In the adult world, you don't start a family until you can provide materially for it. How hard is that concept to understand? As to being entitled to an interesting job, where did that idea come from? In the adult world, we understand that not every job can be emotionally and spiritually fulfilling? It you are not being fulfilled at your job, FIND ANOTHER ONE or get a hobby.

22

Kevin T. Keith:

The "trafficking" problem is systematically portrayed as one of women and children kidnapped and imprisoned as forced sex slaves - but the reality is that the large majority of "trafficked" workers are not in sex work and many or most of them were not tricked or coerced, still less kidnapped.

Precisely.

To see how at least one leading light of the "religious right" sees this, all you have to do is google "Tom De Lay" and "Saipan."

You get links like this , and this.

Workers in sweatshops in Saipan are every bit as trafficked and exploited as anywhere else.

Where is the outcry against Tom De Lay?

23

ucfengr:

One of these things is not like the others, anybody want to guess which one? Apparently, in Mumon's world children being used as slave labor to pick brocoli (or as sex slaves?) is the moral equivalent of adults making an informed decision to join the military, or work at WalMart or in a meat packing plant.

"Informed?" I guess the slaves were "informed" too.

If you can't get a job and have to work in hellish conditions, what solace is it to be informed that those conditions are hellish other than to provide a basis for organizing and engaging in political action to overturn such conditions?

Why is it a huge moral issue that everybody can't have a job that is interesting and provides for a family?

It is a huge moral issue that people are in poverty, and do work that doesn't benefit them, or their children, or their community.

I am not in poverty, by any means, for sure.

But clearly our economic and political system is not organized so that people can find work.

Why is it that you want to avoid seeing a responsibility to the community that provides the food and services you likely depend on for your very survival?

24

The U.S. Government adopted a strong position against legalized prostitution in a December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive based on evidence that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and fuels trafficking in persons.

Prostitution and related activities, including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels, fuel the growth of modern-day slavery by providing a façade behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate. Where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery.

Cool, the argument from authority fallacy. Can we please see the evidence that legalized prostitution causes increased trafficking?

The vast majority of women in prostitution do not want to be there. Few seek it out or choose it, and most are desperate to leave it. A 2003 study in the scientific Journal of Trauma Practice found that 89 percent of women in prostitution want to escape prostitution. Children are also trapped in prostitution—despite the fact that a number of international covenants and protocols impose upon state parties an obligation to criminalize the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

I don't doubt that for a second but at the same time many people slaving away in sweatshops also want to get out. The question is to what degree are people engaged in prostitution due to force from other people or because they simply see it as the least bad option available to themselves? There's a big difference.

State attempts to regulate prostitution by introducing medical check-ups or licenses do not address the core problem: the routine abuse and violence that form the prostitution experience and brutally victimize those caught in its netherworld. Prostitution leaves women and children physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually devastated. Recovery takes years, even decades—often, the damages can never be undone.

Which is all the more reason why it is important to question whether people engaged in prostitution are being forced or are making a choice. Plenty of jobs leave people 'devastated' but generally the market works pretty well. People demand a premium for putting their lives on the line which is passed onto consumers. To the degree that prostitution does all these things fewer women will ever choose it which makes it more expensive for men who wish to purchase it. Provided people are able to make free choices.

Here is where a little economics is helpful. As I stated before forced prostitution is difficult to pull off. The customers are coming into direct contact with your workers & to one degree or another you have to expect your workers to do at least a little selling. Salesmanship requires personal motivation....simply having a gun to your head is not enough. Because of this it often makes more sense to hire willing prostitutes for higher pay than trying to keep a harem full of slaves. Some additional complications to the person thinking about opening up a sex slave business. Prostitution doesn't scale very well. It's a personal service like cutting hair. That means it is often provided by local 'business owners' rather than large organizations. There's little money to save by creating a giant organization to promote it. That means you as the sex slave owner must not only put considerable effort to 'keeping' your slaves in line but that other business owners will seek to poach your slaves by offering them enticements.

Now let's compare this to our nice green friend broccoli. Unlike prostitution broccoli does not require happy workers to sell the product to customers. A thousand children could have been killed picking your broccoli and it will still look as green & fresh as ever at your local Shoprite. Even worse, broccoli has benefits from economies of scale. A small broccoli farm will usually cost more to produce a pound of the stuff than a huge one. This means you are more likely to see only a handful of huge farms monopolizing a vast land. The result is that pickers have fewer places to go if they flee a cruel employer.

CONCLUSION: If you're motivated only by money and are totally indifferent to enslaving people and children it makes far more sense to go into farming or manufacturing in some lawless area rather than prostitution.

I understand why evangelicals would be against prostitution and want to prevent sex slaves. However the economics of the situation tell us that the people in this world who can be considered enslaved are unlikely to be mostly prostitutes. We should also note that many political evangelicals have aligned themselves with Republicans who tend to adopt a free market POV on matters (even though a true free market advocate would recognize that using force to extract labor from another human is no different than a Marxist using force to extract another's property).

25

Yeah, why don't we legalize murder too? Was it a coicidence that the BTK killer had sexual fantasies intertwined with his murderous urges? Sex and violence aren't isolated from each other. Look at abortion. Look at the studies on pornography and violence. Amorality leads to anarchy leads to annihilation. Ride the slippery slope too far and everyone dies. ("a way that seems right to a man...")

"as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it should be legal" doesn't work because autonomous actions usually aren't. Thus, culture/society, not one-man islands.

26

"On one side were evangelical Christians, with their typical fears of foreigners, leftists and sex"

Fear of foreigners?

" The main work these victims did was as cooks, waitresses and housekeepers. The sexual assaults did not involve money. Still, the government apparently is classifying these scenarios as sex trafficking. "

So in other words, they aren't considered prostitues because they weren't paid... so I guess a little rape on the side is just considered a bonus with the job?

27

What "the Left" typically wants is to see a distinction made between voluntary and non-voluntary behavior (sexual and otherwise), and strong autonomy rights attached to the former. There is a range of opinion regarding prostitution among liberals; voluntary sexual behavior obviously is a matter of personal autonomy, but in reality many prostitutes are subject to violence or coercion, so it may not be practically possible to be autonomous in that field. Different people see a different balance between those concerns - but none is so panicked by the thought of sex itself that they regard voluntary prostitution as equivalent to being kidnapped, imprisoned, and raped, nor do they see the mere fact that women actually have sex as evidence by itself that they are being "exploited".

It's worse than that Kevin. IN the old days evangelicals actually had a sense of personal responsibility for decisions. Now of all the good ideas the left ever had they seem to be picking up their worse; using victimization rhetoric to absolve favored groups of all responsibility. Hence radicals on the left have tried to absolve women & minorities of responsibility on the grounds that they are always 'economic and social' victims even if they seem to be acting of their own free will. The evangelicals have started doing this as well, pretending for example that no woman has ever choosen to have an abortion but was rather forced/fooled into it by mean boyfriends and money hungry doctors.

28

Yeah, why don't we legalize murder too? Was it a coicidence that the BTK killer had sexual fantasies intertwined with his murderous urges? Sex and violence aren't isolated from each other. Look at abortion. Look at the studies on pornography and violence. Amorality leads to anarchy leads to annihilation. Ride the slippery slope too far and everyone dies. ("a way that seems right to a man...")

Likewise every murderer was produced by an act of sex (well I guess we might have a few murders that were test tube babies but they are certainly a small portion of murderers). Therefore when will we finally outlaw sex and solve the murder problem!

"as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it should be legal" doesn't work because autonomous actions usually aren't. Thus, culture/society, not one-man islands.

Autonomous action is coupled with well defined property rights. Your right to swing your arms extends only to my face. However once that is set into law you don't have to worry about someone swinging at my face if I give them permission. I would most likely demand compensation from them equal to the damage they could do to me. Hence we shouldn't worry about boxers or professional wrestlers unless we have evidence that someone is using force to take away their ability to make autonomous decisions.

Likewise children are a red herring here. No one advocates allowing children to be forced into sex however it is interesting to note that the laws discussed in the Nation article do seem to give a free pass to countries that permit their children to be forced into...say...picking broccoli. After all, broccoli is good for us isn't it?

29

Boonton,
Thanks for responding. You said:
"Cool, the argument from authority fallacy. Can we please see the evidence that legalized prostitution causes increased trafficking?"

This a false accusation. I'm pointing you to the conclusions based on data. Look into the source to do the work. This does not qualify as an argument from authority fallacy--come on, haven't you read your Yak's? (1) I'm citing published results of evidence from the State Department, an expert in foreign affairs, (2) I do not see any evidence to the contrary that would make me conclude that real experts in the field disagree as to whether prostitution is harmful or if it fuels trafficking (and I'm sure that there is plenty of data to back up the first point--the second point is a new point without any data to the contrary), and (3) this was certainly a serious statement. The only other way this meets the definition is if it is hearsay, and I pointed you to the source.

The only other way out is for you to deny the data actually have a source by staying in suspicion, which leaves 2 actions: (1) trust the source or (2) suspend judgment and do the work to find the source before you decide. I just left a message with Dr. Laura Lederer in State who helped draft the specific press release mentioning this (at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030225.html). I'll post on here in the next few days depending on how quickly I hear from her.

Then you said:
"I don't doubt that (89 percent of women want out of prostitution) for a second"

Why not doubt the same source on this point? If you're going to be skeptical, at least be consistent with it. Plus this is a HUGE point--89 percent of women in prostitution want out! That really strikes at the heart of the huge proportions of voluntary prostitutes.

Then you said:
"but at the same time many people slaving away in sweatshops also want to get out."

True--that's why trafficking includes all forms. Per the same press release:
"Trafficking in persons refers to actions, often including use of force, fraud, or coercion, to compel someone into a situation in which he or she will be exploited for sexual purposes, which could include prostitution or pornography, or for labor without compensation, which could include forced or bonded labor."
This includes the individuals you define. It is not like nothing is being done with respect to nonsexual trafficking. I want to suggest that because sexuality is so inextricably linked to personhood it is more severe.

Then you said:
"The question is to what degree are people engaged in prostitution due to force from other people or because they simply see it as the least bad option available to themselves? There's a big difference."

You are right, there is a difference. The issues split--coercion and prostitution. And somehow data (soon to be revealed) show that prostitution contributes to the phenomenon of trafficking, especially because legal prostitution serves as a cover for trafficking.

Then you said:
"Which is all the more reason why it is important to question whether people engaged in prostitution are being forced or are making a choice."

Look, I'm not denying a difference. What I'm denying is the volunteers go unscarred. How many times did you think you knew better and made a voluntary decision only to find out you were wrong and now have the consequences to deal with?

You continued:
"Plenty of jobs leave people 'devastated' but generally the market works pretty well. People demand a premium for putting their lives on the line which is passed onto consumers."

I'm familiar with the hedonic wage theory associated with risk on the job. However, you are proving the point Joe was making--it is libertarian. To permit complete free market economics while allowing the exploitation of individuals (known or unknown per my last point) smacks of libertarian values with a hint of the sexually revolutionized.

You continued:
"To the degree that prostitution does all these things fewer women will ever choose it which makes it more expensive for men who wish to purchase it. Provided people are able to make free choices."

Okay, hold on. You just reversed your argument and turned it on yourself. If it is made more expensive in the last step of your scenario, the the premium for the risk will increase, increasing the supply of women willing to subject themselves to it. One problem with the market-clearing model in application to this issue is that it is highly theoretical while reality is much more complex. In addition to the more complicated market dynamics I just pointed out, there are the psychological and ultimately spiritual consequences of such behavior. People have souls, and unfortunately the market-clearing model doesn't account for it except to the extent individuals have full information pertaining to their souls, are rational, and are self-interested. When was the last time you had full information about your own soul?

Then you go into an economics lesson:
"Here is where a little economics is helpful. As I stated before forced prostitution is difficult to pull off."

All that follows is speculation used to support this assertion: it is hard to pull off.

You continue:
"The customers are coming into direct contact with your workers & to one degree or another you have to expect your workers to do at least a little selling."

Very little selling, and for most of the children in prostitution, there is nearly no engagement with the "customer". See some of IJM's case studies at www.ijm.org.

You continue:
"Salesmanship requires personal motivation....simply having a gun to your head is not enough."

Assertion. Why isn't it enough? Especially with the ways in which forced prostitution is often associated with rape (that's based on case studies from IJM again, in case you want the source).

You continue:
"Because of this it often makes more sense to hire willing prostitutes for higher pay than trying to keep a harem full of slaves."

Are you unfamiliar with the sex tourism industry? We are talking about men who travel to other countries for dirt-cheap prostitution of children, some as young as 5 years old (again, from IJM). Additionally, the "rational, self-interested" assumption is as stake again, but I digress.

You continue:
"Some additional complications to the person thinking about opening up a sex slave business. Prostitution doesn't scale very well. It's a personal service like cutting hair. That means it is often provided by local 'business owners' rather than large organizations. There's little money to save by creating a giant organization to promote it. That means you as the sex slave owner must not only put considerable effort to 'keeping' your slaves in line but that other business owners will seek to poach your slaves by offering them enticements."

All assertion here. Come on. Here's a statement from State again: "Trafficking in persons is often linked to organized crime, and the profits from trafficking enterprises help fuel other illegal activities." Your speculation at the end of a long scenario that you make to try to support your assertion versus this published statement that had to be fact checked in order to be released. Which would you choose?

You continue:
"Now let's compare this to our nice green friend broccoli. Unlike prostitution broccoli does not require happy workers to sell the product to customers."

The naivety of your statement leaves me dumbfounded.

You go on:
"A thousand children could have been killed picking your broccoli and it will still look as green & fresh as ever at your local Shoprite. Even worse, broccoli has benefits from economies of scale. A small broccoli farm will usually cost more to produce a pound of the stuff than a huge one. This means you are more likely to see only a handful of huge farms monopolizing a vast land. The result is that pickers have fewer places to go if they flee a cruel employer."

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, most of which is based on your still speculative scenario in which now you try to paint a pretty picture for trafficking children to pick broccoli.

Finally, you conclude:
"CONCLUSION: If you're motivated only by money and are totally indifferent to enslaving people and children it makes far more sense to go into farming or manufacturing in some lawless area rather than prostitution."

I wonder how many times that is the choice for an individual looking for trafficked labor to support his venture. Come on.

I thought you were done:
"I understand why evangelicals would be against prostitution and want to prevent sex slaves. However the economics of the situation tell us that the people in this world who can be considered enslaved are unlikely to be mostly prostitutes."

Did you ever take an economics course beyond your simple high school AP?

Your final note:
"We should also note that many political evangelicals have aligned themselves with Republicans who tend to adopt a free market POV on matters (even though a true free market advocate would recognize that using force to extract labor from another human is no different than a Marxist using force to extract another's property)."

This is actually a libertarian position. Evangelicals who align themselves with average Republicans do so on grounds of a moral economy that trumps the free-market economy.

Here's a final hint for you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764557262/qid=1125004254/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8086958-2792131?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

30

Appropos of this whole topic ...I offer you the "Maoist International Movement" opinion that "all sex is rape", which is nothing if not a reflection of the sexual issues facing people who think of themselves as part of a "Maoist International Movement."

A cautionary tale...

31

I'm constantly amazed, in light of the increased fertility of Catholics and Evangelicals compared to secularists, why they continue to think we don't like sex. Guys, we do, just as much as you do. And you know, we don't really get off on denying you guys all your fun either. Do you know who ended slavery in the West? Evangelical Christians. Why on earth would anyone think to connect the mythical Christian hatred of sex with wanting to end ANY kind of slavery, sex slavery or otherwise? Amazing.

32

Sadly, the northern Christians of whom you speak (who were allied with liberal freethinkers) worked in opposition to their southern Christian counterparts, who used Bible verses like the following to support the institution:

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)

More on this here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bledsoe-slavery.html

Christians were active on both sides. Let's not try to tidy up history.

33

I do not see any evidence to the contrary that would make me conclude that real experts in the field disagree as to whether prostitution is harmful or if it fuels trafficking

Keep your argument straight my friend. You alleged that legalized prostitution fueld trafficking....considering that only a few countries have legalized prostitution the question is do the legal countries see more or less trafficing? The brouhaha that erupted over the NY Times Magazine article on human trafficing indicated that there are few reliable numbers on how many are involved or victims of sex trafficing.

Why not doubt the same source on this point? If you're going to be skeptical, at least be consistent with it. Plus this is a HUGE point--89 percent of women in prostitution want out! That really strikes at the heart of the huge proportions of voluntary prostitutes.

No no, there's a difference between wanting out in the sense of "if I could make this money somewhere else I'd leave" and wanting out in the sense of "I don't want to do this but they'll kill or beat me if I don't". The fact is most of us do not want to do the jobs we have and would leave them if we could but we don't because we balance money against happiness and often have to make the best choice out of bad options.

I'm familiar with the hedonic wage theory associated with risk on the job. However, you are proving the point Joe was making--it is libertarian. To permit complete free market economics while allowing the exploitation of individuals (known or unknown per my last point) smacks of libertarian values with a hint of the sexually revolutionized.

Well I suppose but quite frankly no one has made a serious proposal for an alternative. The simple supply-demand theory of wages predates liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

If it is made more expensive in the last step of your scenario, the the premium for the risk will increase, increasing the supply of women willing to subject themselves to it. One problem with the market-clearing model in application to this issue is that it is highly theoretical while reality is much more complex. In addition to the more complicated market dynamics I just pointed out, there are the psychological and ultimately spiritual consequences of such behavior. People have souls, and unfortunately the market-clearing model doesn't account for it except to the extent individuals have full information pertaining to their souls, are rational, and are self-interested. When was the last time you had full information about your own soul?

Errr, well if you know that a prostitute is a job with heavy psychological and spiritual consequences then how come prostitutes don't? If anything one would think they would be even more aware of its hardships. What do you know! They are, you yourself cited the statistic that 89% say they would like to leave. Since people, for the most part, are aware that prostitution is not a pleasent or easy job then why wouldn't my 'highly theoretical' reasoning apply?

Very little selling, and for most of the children in prostitution, there is nearly no engagement with the "customer".

A prostitute that has nearly no engagement with the customer? OK.

Assertion. Why isn't it enough? Especially with the ways in which forced prostitution is often associated with rape (that's based on case studies from IJM again, in case you want the source).

I've never been a pimp but I have managed different types of people & brute force (whether physical or psychological) is almost always an inefficient way to manage people. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but the most successful know to keep the negative reinforcement to a minimim. Keeping a slave requires a lot of negative reinforcement.

Are you unfamiliar with the sex tourism industry? We are talking about men who travel to other countries for dirt-cheap prostitution of children, some as young as 5 years old (again, from IJM). Additionally, the "rational, self-interested" assumption is as stake again, but I digress.

Now we are down to 5, Joe had us down to 6. I've never been to a country like Thiland but some from what I've heard there are plenty of prostitutes there that would be underage in America but not typically as young as you say. No doubt it exists but such a market would be a subset of the larger sex trade. Again if you were a totally immoral person selling 5-9 year old kids to anyone with money who do you think would be doing more buying, the sweat shops or the sex shops?

All assertion here. Come on. Here's a statement from State again: "Trafficking in persons is often linked to organized crime, and the profits from trafficking enterprises help fuel other illegal activities." Your speculation at the end of a long scenario that you make to try to support your assertion versus this published statement that had to be fact checked in order to be released. Which would you choose?

You think that organized crime means no competition? Economies of scale work the same whether the product is legal or illegal and the fact is service products, whether they be prostitutes, doctors, accountants or hair cutters do not benefit from the economies of scale that physical products like cars, herion, or Pokeman cards do. Are you seriously going to tell me that pimps do not compete with each other? That they all get a paycheck from Organized Crime Inc. & play on the same team?

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, most of which is based on your still speculative scenario in which now you try to paint a pretty picture for trafficking children to pick broccoli.

I don't know anything about broccoli and neither does Joe but it is well known that food pickers tend to be on the lowest end of the scale in terms of pay and good treatment. That's true today and it was true when Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath. What is true, though, is that it is easier to hide forced workers in the agricultural/sweatshops than it is the brothels.

Did you ever take an economics course beyond your simple high school AP?

Yea I actually got a degree in it and kept up with it afterwards.

This is actually a libertarian position. Evangelicals who align themselves with average Republicans do so on grounds of a moral economy that trumps the free-market economy.

Then why get all snippy over the Nation article whose main point seems to be that the focus on what is probably an overblown forced sex trade problem is leaving a forced labor problem in more innocent sounding goods ignored.

34

The issue is whether economic sexual exploitation is different in kind than other types of economic exploitation. It's not just 'Christians' who would say that it is so. If your neighbor told he that he would rather see his sister or daughter working in Walmart rather than in the sex industry you wouldn't accuse him of being a religious fundamentalist or 'too hung on sexual morality' would you?
Chesterton was an able critic of capitalism from a Christian perspective. In his "Utopia of the Userers" he makes the argument that unalloyed capitalism makes a virtue of the vice of preying on your fellow men, a sentiment many socialists and marxists would find agreeable. Yet even Chesterton would confess that when we compare working for wages to prostitution we are attempting to compare what is is sometimes bad to that which is always worse.

35

Jim:

Do you know who ended slavery in the West?

With all due respect all around, I'd say it was Haitian slaves and poverty stricken Irish immigrants.

36

Terry :

I'd disagree. This is important to me for a bigger reason than simply an acadameic comparison of crappy jobs to sexual exploitation: we're at a point where we have to consider a major reconstruction of our society (and not just for oil; globalization comes to mind).

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that the "everyday" issues of greed and gluttony and so on are far more prevalent - and incite the sexual trafficking in their own way.

We're not going to have some luxuries in the near future. What are we going to be like?

37

Mumon-
Ethically and morally the world is the same as it was ten thousand years ago. That which looks like moral progress is just the result of economics -- we can afford to be generous because it costs us so little. Blaming the ills of the world on the lust for oil is a mistake. You're chasing a chimera. Also you're off-topic :)
Aren't you trying to shape the world to fit the desires of your ego? I'm not trying to mock you. You seem to be a fellow who has given a lot of thought to the way the world works. I just wonder if the question has ever occurred to you.

38

Terry:

We have, in the words of Nietzche, become "better and more evil," because we are orders of magnitude more powerful - "we" meaning society acting in an organized fashion. Ten thousand years ago we could not completely screw up the earth so that it would be inhabitable for all. We could not organize others to do what we found "hard" work.

Lust for oil is lust for power which is lust. I don't want to get off topic on oil- the human traffic beaten down and used up like so much fast food is merely a symptom. You'd no doubt agree to that- but I think our medicines are somewhat different.

It probably is part of our "nature" as humans to attempt to acquire power; which in and of itself is amoral- it's what we do with it that matters.

Aren't you trying to shape the world to fit the desires of your ego?

I can't say that I am because I certainly don't have the answers, but, again with all respect, I think the first step is to ask questions, and tryto answer them, but with tentative answers.

39

I've read the article twice now, and don't see what Joe does.

True, the author seems to go out of her way to paint the right as anti-foreigner, anti-sex, blah blah blah.

But I think that the larger point is that much of the slave trafficking into the United States is not related to sex at all. If true (and I don't know), I wish she would have gone into the implications of this. Is work in the US so plentiful, that jobs go begging, even giving the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the border each year? That there STILL is not enough workers to soak up the demand for labor? Why is the reluctance to speak to the authorities so profound, that the "victims" will more readily return to the sweatshops or restaurants or factories or cabbage fields, than to a government office? Is is possible that even those who are in involuntary servitude STILL prefer to be so, here in the US, than elsewhere?

Good questions, I think.

40

Mumon,

Are you Mumon or Moron? Not name calling, just asking, right? If all of the economic systems as we know it did not exist, then I suspect you would be out in the woods with a sharp stick or a gun hunting down your dinner; or out in the fields sweating and trying to get your wheat and vegetables to grow. Would you call that forced labor? I guess if you wanted to eat, you would. Just add some creep sodomizing you daily while your trying to get that other stuff done, and then it's the perfect situation, no? I can't believe I've yet again responded to your clueless dialogue---oh well, I will rightly punish myself now.

41

Oh, by the way mumon; I hope you enjoyed your childhood, because that's when we get to enjoy life free and easy, and our parents hand us shelter, food, and entertainment on a platter. For most of these slaves, that childhood is exactly what's being stripped away with horrors added in for good measure. Your attempt to even raise your own need to earn a living or compare it to the 'system' is pathetic beyond defense..

42

Ten thousand years ago we could not completely screw up the earth so that it would be inhabitable for all. We could not organize others to do what we found "hard" work.

What, building the Pyramids wasn't hard work? Would you want to trade places with any of those folk? Do you think our poor, deprived meatpacker would? You know, life expectency of 40 and infant mortality rates in the mid double digits. Poor, poor mumon and his unfulfilling job.

43

Boonton, thanks for your response You are making me really think about this. I’ve responded below.
“Keep your argument straight my friend. You alleged that legalized prostitution fueld trafficking....considering that only a few countries have legalized prostitution the question is do the legal countries see more or less trafficing? The brouhaha that erupted over the NY Times Magazine article on human trafficing indicated that there are few reliable numbers on how many are involved or victims of sex trafficing.
The argument was that, unless contrary evidence is shown to conclude real experts disagree, I am safe to conclude prostitution is harmful and fuels trafficking. Sorry if the wording was confusing.
The truth is many countries have legalized prostitution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Legality_of_selling_sex.
Certainly research must still be conducted. Although exact numbers do not exist, as with most social sciences, reasonable estimates can be made. Bales made one of them. Here’s his methodology:
"… The estimate of 30,000 to 50,000 people being held in forced labor in the United States for purposes of sexual exploitation was arrived at in this way: firstly, we used the State Department's estimate of 18,000 to 20,000 people being trafficked into the US each year. (Admittedly, the State Department has not explained the methodology by which they arrived at this estimate, so we use it in the hope that they will soon make their research methods clear.) Secondly, we adjusted this estimate according to two surveys we have recently conducted. The first survey was of all media reports of trafficking cases in the US over the past four years. These reports covered 136 separate cases of forced labor, 109 of which noted the number trafficked totaling 5,455 individuals. As with most crimes, the number of known and reported cases is a fraction of the actual number of cases occurring. To the best of our understanding the proportion of known to actual cases for human trafficking is low. In this survey 44.2% of cases involved forced labor in prostitution and 5.4% involved the sexual abuse of children, totaling 49.6%. As this is a rough estimate I rounded this up to 50%. In a second survey of forty-nine service provider agencies in the United States that had worked with trafficked persons, we asked how long each trafficked person they had worked with had been held in forced labor. The minimum reported time was one month, the maximum was 30 years. The majority of cases clustered between three years and five years.

"So, if 9,000 to 10,000 of the people trafficked into the US each year will be enslaved for sexual exploitation (50% of 18-20,000), and they are likely to remain in that situation for three to five years, then the number of people enslaved for sexual exploitation at any one time in the US could be between 27,000 and 50,000 people. Since a number of people working in the area of human trafficking have stated that they believe the State Department's estimate is low, I chose to make our estimate based on the upper end of the State Department figure, thus giving an estimate of 30,000 to 50,000."

Now, even if you don’t buy those numbers, applying the same methods to recent State numbers (14,500 to 17,500 according to Ann Jordan of the International Human Rights Law Group in Washington, D.C. as of August of last year), we get an estimated 21,750 to 36,250. Now, according to one of Ms. Nathan’s sources, only 1/3, not 1/2 as Kevin Bales says, deal with forced labor. She cites his survey of newspaper reports as a shoddy method because forced labor in the papers will more often be associated with sexual exploitation. Using this estimate, we still arrive at 14,500 to 24,150 in the US each year.

You said: “No no, there's a difference between wanting out in the sense of "if I could make this money somewhere else I'd leave" and wanting out in the sense of "I don't want to do this but they'll kill or beat me if I don't". The fact is most of us do not want to do the jobs we have and would leave them if we could but we don't because we balance money against happiness and often have to make the best choice out of bad options.”
Do you have these experiences in your unwanted job you still work? I don’t.
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy2.html

You said: “Errr, well if you know that a prostitute is a job with heavy psychological and spiritual consequences then how come prostitutes don't? If anything one would think they would be even more aware of its hardships. What do you know! They are, you yourself cited the statistic that 89% say they would like to leave. Since people, for the most part, are aware that prostitution is not a pleasent or easy job then why wouldn't my 'highly theoretical' reasoning apply?”
Because they are not able to—they are in bondage to their work. 89 percent want to leave (or 92 percent according to Farley’s research), meaning for whatever reason they cannot. Plus, consistent with psychological research, those in abusive situations are not self-interested—they end up agreeing with their abuser about their own value. Over 60 percent of Farley’s respondents were raped according to the formal definition. Come on, don’t you see it is different?

You said: “A prostitute that has nearly no engagement with the customer? OK.”
In context, the statement meant that children do not engage much with the customer in to sell themselves. Their “pimps” or more often the individuals who are forcing them to do this, are the ones engaging with the customer.

You said: "I've never been a pimp but I have managed different types of people & brute force (whether physical or psychological) is almost always an inefficient way to manage people. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but the most successful know to keep the negative reinforcement to a minimim. Keeping a slave requires a lot of negative reinforcement.
It is inefficient because there are options. If one has no options, then it would work. You’re confusing your own experience with that of actual individuals in this position. Come on, look outside yourself.

You said: “You think that organized crime means no competition?”
No I don’t, but that doesn’t preclude organizing.

You said: “Then why get all snippy over the Nation article whose main point seems to be that the focus on what is probably an overblown forced sex trade problem is leaving a forced labor problem in more innocent sounding goods ignored.”
Because Ms. Nathan is highlighting the forced labor while at the same time the sex work is being dismissed as legitimate. Ms Nathan cited no data to support this claim.

44

Kevin,
You are right, good questions.

45

Part of the argument implicit in this is that because these people come from a situation so bad that they will do about anything to get out, and because they made the decision it is less moraly reprehensible for them to be slaves in this country. Obscene.
Mummon: Search Abolitionist, click on biographies, you find and tell me what percentage were Christians who took their Christianity very seriously. Both in Europe and in America most most fit my description.

46

Rob B:

If all of the economic systems as we know it did not exist, then I suspect you would be out in the woods with a sharp stick or a gun hunting down your dinner; or out in the fields sweating and trying to get your wheat and vegetables to grow. Would you call that forced labor?

Of course not; I'm not suggesting that we don't have to work and work hard in our lives.

Why do you think the alternative to slave labor is sloth?

That's pretty scary to me that a mind can't see that there's a big in between in between those things.

47

Mike O:

While I know that Christians were inolved in the anti-slavery movement, the basic facts are a) the first slaves to be freed in the New World were Haitians, who achieved it in their own uprising (which led to years of sanctions from America, who didn't want the idea of slave uprisings to spread), b) Abraham Lincoln was not an Evangelical Christian, and c) much of the raw talent drafted for the Union Army came from Irish immigrants.

So, if I had to award merit badges for freeing the slaves in the New World, Haitian slaves and Irish immigrants would get them first.

48

ucfengr:

Forgive me for being so literal; 10,000 years ago wasn't 5,000 years ago.

There weren't any pyramids 10,000 years ago- there was not to our knowledge any kind of civilization more than primitive tribes.

I wouldn't want -nor would the meatpacker- to trade places with them, nor would I - or you I would say- want to trade places with the folks in the sweatshops before all those nasty liberals brought about things like the 6 day work week, the minimum wage, disability insurance, etc.

Although it's obviously not a problem for Tom De Lay.

49

It all goes to prove the old adage:

"A liberal is someone who, when witnessing a 14 year old girl performing live sex acts on stage, worries whether she's being paid the minimum wage."

50

Yes mumon, the Pyramid are less than 10,000 years old and you are being too literal, but do you really want to argue that the primitive tribes you described didn't have mechanisms for organizing labor to do distasteful jobs? Perhaps a raid on a neighboring primitive tribe to collect slaves?

It is a huge moral issue that people are in poverty, and do work that doesn't benefit them, or their children, or their community.

Then what are you morally obligated to do about it, mumon?

51

ucfengr:

Then what are you morally obligated to do about it, mumon?

I think all it takes is to compare mumon's words from this thread.

I'm not wealthy, but when it's this time in the morning, and I've got a grueling day of travel ahead of me, and nobody's ringing my phone offering me $40,000 more a year for similar work or better, you better believe my labor feels forced.

He starts off complaining about how he's not paid enough. Also notice he has a grueling day of travel. Hmm, must be using some of that oil.

It is a huge moral issue that people are in poverty, and do work that doesn't benefit them, or their children, or their community.

To now, we lust for oil and there are poor people we aren't doing enough for.

Of course, if his labor is forced and he buys into the Nathan article, then he is suffering the same as those forced into prostitution.

52

I suggest that 95-99% of all jobs are good and produce good things for self and others.

53

Boonton (and others),
I have not yet heard from Ms. Lederer of State, but I came across a study that is quite solid. Some of the highlights (meaning go the source for background data if you question it) include:

-- The same crime groups that traffic in drugs and weapons are often the same gangs that traffic in human beings (page 17).

-- 50,000 women and children are trafficked each year into the United States, primarily from Latin America, Russia, the New Independent States, and Southeast Asia (page 17-cites the Asian Regional Initiative Against Trafficking Country Plan of the United States, 1999).

-- There is evidence that contradicts this claim (that legalization of prostitution would solve abuse, health, and violence problems). The consequences of legalization in Australia, and a similar legally-sanctioned explosion of the sex industry in the Netherlands, has increased trafficking into both countries. Eighty percent of women in prostitution in the Netherlands have been trafficked into the country (page 19--cites The Budapest Group, 1999).

-- Sex trafficking has become a massive transnational industry, especially in the last 20 years, but in many cases traffickers and pimps are small-scale operators. For example, although the Asian smuggling and trafficking networks are international, large-scale, and sophisticated, the Mexican traffickers, such as the Cadena family, appear to be smaller-scale and nowhere near as sophisticated and organized. The Russian Mafiya, according to Europol, “is truly organized crime on a major scale” (Caldwell, et al., 1997: 31). The American traffickers operating domestically appear to be one-man or family operations, nonetheless running multi-state trafficking enterprises and sometimes grossing millions of dollars.

-- Many of the respondents in this study described processes of seduction and seasoning into the sex
industry by pimps that begin in the recruitment and initiation stages, and continue as methods of
controlling women and girls after entrance into the sex industry. Women are often coaxed, coerced,
and/or raped by a pimp, and then cajoled or forced into having sex with his “friends.” The seduction
and seasoning can be quick or gradual, and is masked by a confusing mix of flattery, attention,
“protection,” and most often violence and exploitation. Young women and girls are particularly vulnerable to these tactics (page 57).
******For more on women's choice in entering the industry, see page 91.

-- It is often asked why women don’t simply leave the sex industry. The assumption is that women
enter prostitution by choice and can thus make the choice to leave. In fact, women in prostitution are often restricted, controlled and coerced in ways not recognized (page 59).
*****Note that this both indicates the lack of freedom of those trafficked and it also repudiates the point Ms. Nathan made, her only real source of data, that sex is overemphasized within trafficking discussions. Those trafficked are controlled, implying they cannot get to officials for the visas Ms. Nathan highlights. For more about leaving the industry, see pages 87-88.

-- Sixty-seven percent (N=10) of the U.S. women responding said prostitution should not be
legalized or recognized as a form of work. Eleven U.S. women did not respond to this question, and
21 percent (N=3) answered yes. When the question was asked if U.S. women would recommend their
experience in the sex industry to other women, 94 percent (N=16) of those responding said no, only
one woman said yes. One woman stated that in the past she had considered prostitution “very
empowering work, but [now realizes] it’s only a way for male society to keep women down” (page 89).

54

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/sex_traff_us.pdf

Others are at:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/

55

Good service