Why Is "Sex Trafficking" Always Seen in a Negative Light?
In a context of increasing
hostility toward migrants,
it grates on people’s nerves to think
that many might prefer to use sex
to earn money instead of washing dishes,
babysitting, working in a sweatshop,
or picking fruit for much less money
"We, Asian Sex Workers" Art Show
A Mumbai Sex Worker
The US spends millions every year fighting sex trafficking --but are we just pushing our own
sexual issues on women around the world?
Why is “sex trafficking,” denounced in the media as a rampant crime linked to global gangs and insecurity at borders?
The U.S. government, claiming to be the world’s moral arbiter, spends millions issuing an annual report card rating other countries’ efforts to combat this crime and trying to rescue victims around the world.
The implication is clear: “American” ideas about sex and morality are the right ones for the planet. In other words, if the ideal of “American” sexual relationships is accepted everywhere, the enslavement of women and children will end.
In a context of increasing hostility toward migrants, it grates on people’s nerves to think that many might prefer to use sex to earn money instead of washing dishes, babysitting, working in a sweatshop, or picking fruit for much less money.
To understand why headlines insist that all migrant women who sell sex are “trafficked,” we need to go back to the popular idea that the proper place of sex is at home, between “committed” lovers and family.
When only this kind of relationship is imagined to be equitable and valid, it becomes easier to think that women from other cultures are poor, backward, vulnerable objects passively waiting for exploitation by rapacious men.
With these notions, from the point of view of the comfortably sheltered, no one would opt to sell sex and migrants must be forced to do it.
What can we know about the actual sex involved in this moral conflict? We know all “sex acts” are not the same in the context of loving relationships, and they are not all the same just because money is exchanged for them.
Migrant workers sell millions of sexual experiences every day around the world to customers from different cultures, learning and teaching through experience how physicality mixes with skill, sophistication, hostility, tenderness, insecurity, respect.
“Sex trafficking” headlines claim that all migrant women who sell sex are invariably being abused, without regard to their diverse backgrounds and without asking them how they feel.
But many reject being defined as sexually vulnerable and in need of “rescuing” and protection.
Everyone does not feel the same way about sex -- in rich countries like the United States, or in any other country. Nationality is a poor way to understand human beings and their sexualities.
Racist Attitudes Towards Migrant Sex Workers
I don’t believe that there are national sexualities. But our language reflects vague impressions of how people in other cultures do sex—a tongue-kiss, “French”; anal penetration, “Greek”; penis-between-the-breasts, “Cuban.”
They are stereotypes most of us don’t take seriously, and the national tags vary according to what country we’re standing in. But everywhere we have notions that out there somewhere are strange, wonderful, and exotic kinds of sex waiting for us to try.
But what about “sex trafficking,” denounced in the media as a rampant crime linked to global gangs and insecurity at borders?
The U.S. government, claiming to be the world’s moral arbiter, spends millions issuing an annual report card rating other countries’ efforts to combat this crime and trying to rescue victims around the world.
The implication is clear: “American” ideas about sex and morality are the right ones for the planet. In other words, if the ideal of “American” sexual relationships is accepted everywhere, the enslavement of women and children will end.
In the West, in the present, many people believe that sex should express love. This “good” sex is also said to provide a key way to discover personal identity -- who we really are, our innermost selves.
It is assumed that feelings of love increase pleasure (quantitatively) and intensify it (qualitatively), resulting in meaningful passion that is expressed through long term, emotionally committed relationships.
Other sexual relations then seem wrong, among them anonymous, public, and “promiscuous” sex.
Above all, “real” love and sex are said to be incompatible with rationality and work -- at least that is the way many wish it to be.
At the same time, people wonder: Is there a boom underway in the buying and selling of sex, part of a general sexualization of contemporary culture?
Since objective data is impossible to gather when businesses operate outside the law, we cannot know whether sex-and-money transactions are going on more than ever, but we certainly know we see and hear about them more.
So although we tell a powerful story about sex and love belonging together, we also understand that people want other kinds of sex.
We hear about people who buy and sell sex from our friends, acquaintances, the media, and sometimes through reporting on migration -- which is where “sex trafficking” comes in.
In a context of increasing hostility toward migrants, it grates on people’s nerves to think that many might prefer to use sex to earn money instead of washing dishes, babysitting, working in a sweatshop, or picking fruit -- for much less money.
But migrants -- who come in all sizes, shapes and colors, and from infinitely varying backgrounds -- are just trying to get by as best they can on what can be a very rocky path.
Migrants who cross borders to work need to be flexible and adaptable to succeed. They often do not know beforehand how they will be living, and they may not know the language.
They may not find the food, music, or films they like, or the mosque, temple, or church. Everything looks different; they feel lonely.
They may feel enormous pressure to pay back debts contracted to undertake their journey, and they may fear being picked up by the police. But they have arrived with a plan, some names and addresses, and some amount of money.
When migration policy is tightened at the same time that low-status jobs are abundantly available, a market opens up to help migrants cross borders.
Some of this looks just like legal travel, but much of it involves bigger risks and higher costs, and some entails egregious exploitation -- whether migrants are destined to work in mines, private homes, sweatshops, agriculture, or the sex industry.
Some migrants prefer to do anything rather than sell sex -- for instance, “mules” who take on the job of carrying drugs inside their bodies. Once across a border, past work experience and diplomas, whether white-collar or blue, are usually not recognized.
Migrant schoolteachers, engineers, nurses, hairdressers and a range of others find only low-status, low-paying jobs open to them.
Many of them, from everywhere on the social spectrum, would rather work in the sex industry -- in one or the other of a huge variety of jobs.
Bars, restaurants, cabarets, private clubs, brothels, discotheques, saunas, massage parlors, sex shops, peep shows, hotel rooms, homes, bookshops, strip and lap-dance venues, dungeons...
Internet sites, beauty parlors, clubhouses, cinemas, public toilets, phone lines, shipboard festivities, as well as modelling, swinging, stag and fetish parties -- sex is sold practically everywhere.
Where these are businesses operating without licences, undocumented workers can easily be employed: the paradox of prohibition. For migrants who are already working without official permission, these jobs may well seem no riskier than any other.
To understand why headlines insist that all migrant women who sell sex are “trafficked,” we need to go back to the popular idea that the proper place of sex is at home, between “committed” lovers and family.
When only this kind of relationship is imagined to be equitable and valid, it becomes easier to think that women from other cultures are poor, backward, vulnerable objects passively waiting for exploitation by rapacious men.
With these notions, from the point of view of the comfortably sheltered, no one would opt to sell sex and migrants must be forced to do it.
What can we know about the actual sex involved in this moral conflict?
We know all “sex acts” are not the same in the context of loving relationships, and they are not all the same just because money is exchanged for them.
Migrant workers sell millions of sexual experiences every day around the world to customers from different cultures, learning and teaching through experience how physicality mixes with skill, sophistication, hostility, tenderness, insecurity, respect.
When we have sex with others we influence each other, and although a single interaction may not have a lasting impact, many sexual agreements are complex or often repeated.
Occasionally, a single experience can change the course of a life. In a commercial relationship, on one side are people flexible about how they make money, on the other are people wanting to fulfill a desire or experiment.
These relationships take place in actual social contexts -- indeed, sex itself is often subsidiary to the conspicuous consumption of alcohol or entertainment, to cruising or just to men “being men” together.
Since everywhere men are granted more permission to experiment with sex and have more money to spend, their tastes help determine what’s offered and with whom, whether they be women, men, or transsexuals.
These millions of relationships, which take place every day, cannot be reduced to undifferentiated “sex acts” or eliminated from cultural consideration just because they entail money.
Both client and sex worker may be acting seduction, flirtation, and affection when they are together, but camaraderie, friendship, love, and marriage also occur. And both sides are fascinated by sexual differences, imagined to be “national,” exotic, and real.
How we perform sex, what we feel when we do particular things, depends on our cultural (not national) contexts:
How we were taught to do them and by whom, what we were permitted to try out, whether we talked to others about what we were doing and what we wanted.
When we engage sexually with others, we learn and teach, we influence each other and change how we do things -- often without knowing it.
Because people are poor, or have left their countries to work abroad, or take money in exchange for sex does not change their humanity, their capacity to feel, respond, learn, or teach, whether sex is at issue or not.
“Sex trafficking” headlines claim that all migrant women who sell sex are invariably being abused, without regard to their diverse backgrounds and without asking them how they feel.
But many reject being defined as sexually vulnerable and in need of “rescuing” and protection.
Everyone does not feel the same way about sex -- in rich countries like the United States, or in any other country. Nationality is a poor way to understand human beings and their sexualities.
This is sick commentary on poor women that need to make a living in poor
countries. It has nothing to do with views on sexuality. Why don't you
sign up for this job? Then return to your safe home in the US and make this
type of social commentary.