Fallacy and Distinction
Recently on AKIMBO, the blog of the International Women’s Health Coalition, Audacia Ray posted about the June release of the 10th Annual Trafficking in Persons Report by the United States Department of State. I have not read completely the 373-page report but rather browsed it a bit, spot reading a few paragraphs on different pages. What I read I (not surprisingly) found heartbreaking.
There is no intention in me whatsoever to undermine, dismiss, or observe with any lack of appropriate reverence the horrific phenomenon of human trafficking. I do feel concern, however, about a conflation of human trafficking or sex trafficking specifically with sex work in general. As Audacia pointed out when she provided the link, the ugly phenomenon of human trafficking encompasses far more areas of industry than just sex work, and indeed, in my brief perusing of the report, much of what I saw related to other forms of industry. And yet, sex trafficking seems to be the area most associated with human trafficking to the public, and in some cases this emphasis seems to be used to argue for continued (or increased) criminalization of prostitution.
This is not to necessarily accuse the perspective that proposes this conflation of exploiting the tragedy of human trafficking, but it does seem important to me to provide another perspective(s). The current phenomenon of human trafficking seems to me related to a number of economic, social, psychological, evolutionary, and consciousness-related factors beyond the scope of this post, and a consideration of human trafficking or sex trafficking as synonymous with sex work seems to me severely misguided. I see no intrinsic connection, much less interchangeability, between the two.
I read two online articles recently that I interpreted as presenting fallacious assertions about sex work and human trafficking.* Both were at an anti-sex-trafficking website called Hope for the Sold. The first was published June 8 of this year and is a response to a video of Pye Jakobsson discussing sex worker rights and the Swedish model of criminalizing the patronization of sexual services. The second is a follow-up article in response to comments received on the first.
In the second referenced article, Michelle Brock of Hope for the Sold states,
This seems to me a possible subtle fallacy. The legalization of alcohol at the time of Prohibition did not seem to increase the demand for it. The demand was already there. Maxim claims prostitution as the world’s oldest profession. In this country and much of the world, capitalism is an official and strongly ingrained social system. Sexuality is intrinsic in us. Combined, the demand for sexual services does not seem to need much help.“Legalization grows the size of the sex industry, which includes a rise in demand for paid sex.”
Does it seem likely that an increase in the demand for manual labor has occurred because it is legal to work in that industry? For domestic work? Is that why we think human beings are trafficked for these purposes? Because domestic work and manual labor being legal are increasing the demand for it? To me that makes little sense. As with sex work, the demand seems to be already there and not to need any help. I see no basis for a supposition that sex work being legal increases a demand for it, or really that demand is or would be affected very much by legal status at all. Human trafficking seems to encompass numerous factors, contributors, and circumstances not exclusive to or even necessarily directly related to sex work or any of the particular industries in which it is occurring.
In the first article, Ms. Brock asserts,
“[Ms. Jakobsson] fails to see that prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be separated.”
Really? So does that mean manual labor and manual labor trafficking cannot be separated, and domestic work and domestic work trafficking cannot be separated? What will we do about that? Try to abolish a demand for manual labor and domestic work? Criminalize them? Criminalize the purchase of such services? I fail to see how “prostitution and sex trafficking” any more “cannot be separated” than other kinds of work from their respective trafficking occurrences.
Which brings me back to the heartbreaking point that there are many other areas and cases in which human beings are currently being trafficked besides sex work. The fixation on sex trafficking to the exclusion of other areas of trafficking is one of the things that signals that a bias against sex work itself may be in operation.
It does not seem productive to me to perceive an “us against them” circumstance between those who support decriminalization of prostitution and those who seek to eradicate human trafficking. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these positions; on the contrary, I don’t recall ever encountering or hearing of anyone who supports the decriminalization of prostitution not also unquestionably desiring the elimination of human trafficking.
What seems important to me is to present an alternative perspective(s) to any which may be focused on a hostility toward sex work itself and thus draw superficial, ignorant, or arbitrary connections between decriminalization and sex trafficking that may be more related to ingrained cultural perspectives than what is actually occurring. (I do not use “ignorant” there derogatorily but rather advisedly—ignorant of an understanding of consensual sex work, a category into which much of the population may fall—and not necessarily by fault of their own: there is little in mainstream society to illuminate this understanding for the general public.)
As I ponder how to close this post right now, what feels forthcoming is a sincere reiteration of respect and love for everyone, encompassing the heartbreak for the tragedy of human trafficking and the holding of unconditional love in this deep wish for the Awakening of all humanity.
Love,
Emerald
“Hey you, don’t tell me there’s no hope at all, together we stand, divided we fall…”
-Pink Floyd “Hey You”
7 Responses “Fallacy and Distinction”
I agree with what you expressed in this, Em.
Further, my take on it, for what its worth:
Prohibition resulted in a flourishing new illegal business, the trafficking of liquor. Those businesses were crippled when prohibition was repealed.
Most people want to do business in a legal way, so my bet is that the majority consumers of sex services would rather do it “above board.”
This would take these customers out of the realm of the illegal trade.
Therefore, the demand for illegally traded people would be reduced.
“Prohibition resulted in a flourishing new illegal business, the trafficking of liquor. Those businesses were crippled when prohibition was repealed.”
I so agree, Craig.
Thank you for reading and commenting!
Another interesting post, Emerald.
You might be interested to read this story in the Guardian newspaper from last year about the scale and nature of sex trafficking in the UK. It’s quite long, but eye-opening given the exaggerations and inaccuracies used by politicians, the media, police and others.
Hi ste! Thank you—and yes, while I haven’t gotten all the way through the article to which you linked yet, I have read other pieces about what may be the exaggeration of numbers about trafficking and the perpetuation of them. Thank you for sharing that.
Thank you also very much for reading and for commenting. Sorry for my delay in responding—I have been traveling to and visiting my hometown for the past couple weeks to see my baby sister, who was pregnant and gave birth to her and her husband’s son last Tuesday. :) It’s seemed a little busy around here! Anyway, thank you again so much—I have much appreciated your presence here. :)
Hi Emerald
If I’ve got my information right, the exaggerations mentioned in that report were actually used as the basis for a new law recently. Nothing like evidence-based policy making, is there?
You might also be interested in this post on a blog I discovered recently. It’s much shorter than the Guardian article, I promise!
And congratulations to your sister and her husband! What a wonderful time it must be for you all.
I loved the content of that link, ste! Thank you so much! (I’ve actually put it down as a potential “Recommended Reading” link.)
I so agree with what it said. Somehow when “sex” is added to a mix, the perceived consequences or results seem to shoot up exponentially in intensity or significance. This seems to me observable in a number of areas, and I have commented on it before.
“And congratulations to your sister and her husband!”
Thank you so much! I just arrived back home on Monday (halfway across the United States), and it felt hard to leave him behind (as well as the rest of my family of course)…. I’m so glad I got to be there for his birth and to visit him the first week and a half of his life! :)
Hi Emerald,
Yeah, I think that post was spot on. I was so pleased to find that blog actually, because I’ve read the author’s writing on areas such as sex, censorship and the law on a techie website in the past. It’s good to find someone with her (and perhaps your) sensibilities writing on these matters with regard to the UK in particular, especially given some of the laws that have been passed here in recent years.