Home > The Modern Moral Crusade > Anti-Sex-Trafficking Dude Calls Prostitutes “Nasty, Immoral” – Prostitute Not Shocked

Anti-Sex-Trafficking Dude Calls Prostitutes “Nasty, Immoral” – Prostitute Not Shocked

12/14/2009

It seems sort of important to me that dudes from the Bush administration are now in charge of the anti-sex trafficking movement, and pimping it hard. The Ambassador has a blog post on the Polaris Project Blog:

Reverse the Stigma
by Ambassador Mark P. Lagon

And calling women in general “hos” is reprehensible.

But let me go further – calling actual prostituted women and girls “hos” is also reprehensible. By calling them “hos” one suggests that they are dirty and unworthy of society’s concern or acceptance; that they are culpable for the nasty, immoral lives they are in; and that they have complete choice in the matter – or “agency” as lawyers and scholars say. They may not have a choice.
……
We need cops, immigration officials, health care providers, other first responders, and all citizens to entertain the possibility that prostituted females may be sex trafficking victims. In any case they are always human beings of equal value to everyone else.

I wrote about this guy before.

First off, that line up there “they are culpable for the nasty, immoral lives they are in”, ugh! See, Lagon thinks that just because he wraps it all up in a lot of feminist jargon that he thought he learned, that he can hide that “nasty, immoral lives” bit in the middle there, and make it seem not what it is. He thinks prostitution is “nasty” and “immoral” — I can think of so many other things he probably thinks are “nasty and immoral”. I wonder what he thinks of same sex marriage and same sex couples adopting? Or abortion, I wonder if he is “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion rights? (No he’s not.)

Cops. Immigration. “health care” (not abortion oh no no no) “Other First Responders” (whoever they are – church types probably)

Here’s a bit from an article of his from The Weekly Standard

What Sheriff Tom Dart has done is shift enforcement resources from the supply side to the demand side: from arresting (and releasing and rearresting) forcibly prostituted women and girls to arresting pimps and johns and impounding their cars, while directing the prostituted females to social services. (Last week a U.S. district judge threw out another part of Dart’s new strategy: a lawsuit against Craigslist for the hazard created by its online want ads offering “erotic” and “adult” services–some 13,000 ads a day.)

It is too soon to say what effect this policy reversal will have in the Chicago area. But supporters (including the nonprofit I head) point to the success of a similar reform in Sweden that already has a track record.

In 1999, Sweden criminalized the purchase of sexual services. Offenders face a fine or up to six months in prison, while pimps and other traffickers face incarceration for up to 10 years. Prostituted women, meanwhile, are not prosecuted but directed to social services designed to help them develop alternative means of support and recover from their dehumanizing experience. Some are provided legal services. Foreigners are encouraged to participate in trafficking investigations and prosecutions; those who decline are returned to their country of origin after 30 days.The rationale, in the words of Thomas Bodström, a former Swedish minister of justice, was that “as long as men think they are entitled to buy and use women’s and girls’ bodies, human trafficking for sexual purposes will continue.”

Those “social services” are religious organizations. I read articles about how terrible it is that these same orgainizations open up “adoption clinics” that pretend to be abortion clinics, and then the women are pressured into having the babies, and people arrange protests and everything… and then the SAME sites organizing those protests post about how great the “Swedish Solution” is for sex workers. It’s so blatant. Is it because more women are likely to get an abortion than are likely to become sex workers and It’s easier identify with maybe?

They talk a lot about the “johns” the “customers” – but the people who actually have the most to lose are the husbands and fathers and brother and boyfriends of “prostituted women” who get somehow swept up in this stuff. That’s the “other traffickers”. It could be a woman, in fact most of the trafficking arrests I’ve seen were of women accused of trafficking women. Imagine what that means…. any woman helping a woman – they can be accused. When they talk about trafficking in the US – they don’t just mean trafficking into the US from other countries, they mean trafficking between states.

That’s all of us. Not just prostitutes. That’s anyone who needs to go to another state for an abortion. Anyone trying to flee an oppressive or violent family situation – it doesn’t matter if you are going to do “sex work” or if you are “trafficked” or anything. It’s entirely at the discretion of the police, who can accuse you of prostitution, you and whoever happens to be with you, and you are given the option of a prostitution charge, or saying you were “trafficked” – now, if you say you are trafficked, your buddy probably goes to jail for 10+ years, and you get shuffled off to a nice charity organization or shuffled back to your abusive family. If you insist you weren’t trafficked, you get a charge, possibly jail, and they can still charge your buddy with trafficking because they don’t need to have the victim actually press the charges.

All it takes is a handful of condoms for them to brand you a “prostituted woman”, and the person you are with as a “trafficker”

They can take your home, your savings – everything – before you are convicted. You never get it back. Check out the FEAR link over yonder.

Here’s the thing! Here’s why you have to support sex workers in the fight against this stuff…because we see the hypocrisy in it, because we ARE in it. The US is the odd man out in this case, because – the anti sex trafficking movement wants prostitution totally criminalized – it already is criminialized in the US though. They say that if it’s legal or permissable, that traffickers will bring women to where it’s LEGAL. That makes no sense, first of all, because if it’s legal, any john can go right to the cops and say “yeah, I was at a new brothel I heard about and the girls there were way too young, you should go check it out” … but if it’s ILLEGAL a john can’t do that, not without his wife and kids and boss hearing about it, etc etc. Prostitutes see this hypocrisy big time… Decriminalization is really the only way to go, even better than legal, but legal is better than nothing… legal still screws the whores but won’t give traffickers a real black market to exploit.

Fact is, the anti-trafficking movement wants prostitution illegal because if it is LEGAL then they can’t pressure women, and force them into “social services”. If it’s legal they can’t keep hiding the fact that most of the sex trafficking stuff is grossly inflated, and then they lose funding, and they lose the opportunity to control all the most sinful women in the world.

We’re all just one bad choice away from being sinful. Feminists are the only ones with the power to stop this, to call attention to it.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. 01/14/2010 at 9:03 AM
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,389 other followers

%d bloggers like this: