This is something that concerned me before I started participating in the hobby, so I did some research. Keep in mind that the women on this forum clearly have the freedom of a computer, literacy, and spare time, and are extremely unlikely to be controlled by traffckers. But if you read up on cases of trafficking, a pattern emerges. Girls who are being trafficked have the following hallmarks: 1) young, advertise 19-21 (but are younger); 2) backpage advertising only; 3) very little evidence of history in the area, as they move around a lot; 3) very cheap, to maximize number of clients, often advertising half hour rates; 4) Incall location is cheap hotel or if they do outcalls they are driven by "a friend"; 5) email or text communication is semi-literate; 6) minimal screening, if any.
TER users discourage use of such providers by encouraging use of well-reviewed providers, but I am not sure we do enough, given the amount of piggybacking done on the work of guys who "take one for the team". Not saying every provider who fits the above profile is coerced, but I know I avoid them like the plague and get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see certain ads. Not coincidentally, these are the types of ads that LE posts when they do stings (although they often have to go older to fit the real age of the undercover cop posing as the provider).In advocating for sex worker rights, the central issue that must be addressed is coercion. To what extent are sex workers coerced, and to what extent is their involvement in sex work consensual?
The answer, of course, is that there is no one answer for all sex workers, and that each sex worker's situation is different.
Yet, those who oppose sex workers' rights conflate trafficked minors with adults whose involvement in sex work is consensual. This has the effect of denying rights to those adults whose involvement is consensual.
I am interested in hearing the views of sex workers on this issue. What does coercion mean to you? How would you define it? The voice of sex workers is an important part of the discussion, and in moving this issue forward, potentially to the US Supreme Court, I would like to hear that voice.
Coerced sex is not a clear cut issue. However, some sex workers enjoy greater freedom in conducting her business. Internet sex workers (those who use internet to conduct her business), for example, enjoy such freedom in many respects. Some of the key features indicate such freedom (or lack of coerced sex):
- She offers outcall. It is difficult for another party (such as a pimp) to control her if she goes out to meet a client in private -- how much she receives, what she does, her ability to retain such client for herself ...
- She screens clients. This is a key feature of lack of coercion if she decides whom to meet or not to meet.
- She advertises online. Cheap, easy access to internet means easier entry without anyone else's "helps".
- She charges high fees. Fees in the hundreds means her wage rate is on par with some high paid professionals' and abundance of financial resources for her to conduct her business.
- She looks attractive to mainstream men. Internet sex workers are usually not of the old image of street walkers. Good money and easier entry attracted mainstream people of both supply and demand sides. If she is a 20 year young call center customer rep earning $8 a hour knowing that she can earn hundreds as a sex worker, that is a big attraction for her. If he is a business executive knowing there are those 20 year young call center girls willing to accept money for sex, that is a big attraction to him.
-- Modified on 7/5/2013 4:43:29 AM
However, I do believe that if a sex worker can feel confident that they can call LE and tell them that they feel they are being coerced illegally, and do so without any fear of reprisal or arrest, then the situation will be a lot better than it is today.
Unfortunately, the very laws that are supposed to protect people from trafficking, only serve the interest of the traffickers.
Unfortunately, the very laws that are supposed to protect people from trafficking, only serve the interest of the traffickers.
If this was legal then if a pimp does anything bad to a girl she can call the police to protect her without worrying about the police turning on her.
If they would legalize prostitution it would be safer for escorts and clients.
This is something that concerned me before I started participating in the hobby, so I did some research. Keep in mind that the women on this forum clearly have the freedom of a computer, literacy, and spare time, and are extremely unlikely to be controlled by traffckers. But if you read up on cases of trafficking, a pattern emerges. Girls who are being trafficked have the following hallmarks: 1) young, advertise 19-21 (but are younger); 2) backpage advertising only; 3) very little evidence of history in the area, as they move around a lot; 3) very cheap, to maximize number of clients, often advertising half hour rates; 4) Incall location is cheap hotel or if they do outcalls they are driven by "a friend"; 5) email or text communication is semi-literate; 6) minimal screening, if any.
TER users discourage use of such providers by encouraging use of well-reviewed providers, but I am not sure we do enough, given the amount of piggybacking done on the work of guys who "take one for the team". Not saying every provider who fits the above profile is coerced, but I know I avoid them like the plague and get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see certain ads. Not coincidentally, these are the types of ads that LE posts when they do stings (although they often have to go older to fit the real age of the undercover cop posing as the provider).
What I had meant to also mention is that we already have laws which address coercion generally, regardless of the nature of the forced labor. This makes additional laws addressing coercion for sex work unnecessary, and yet we see these laws being proposed, because of the supposed "special status" of sex. I am also interested in hearing the voices of sex workers on this subject.
The answer, of course, is that there is no one answer for all sex workers, and that each sex worker's situation is different.
Yet, those who oppose sex workers' rights conflate trafficked minors with adults whose involvement in sex work is consensual. This has the effect of denying rights to those adults whose involvement is consensual.
I am interested in hearing the views of sex workers on this issue. What does coercion mean to you? How would you define it? The voice of sex workers is an important part of the discussion, and in moving this issue forward, potentially to the US Supreme Court, I would like to hear that voice.
Well if there is a pimp the girls are probally coerced. Pimps beat, rob, rape, etc. Pimps suck.
If the girl works on her own then she is most likely doing it out of her own free will.
he “idea” of coercion is a construct that is masking the underlying problem. The biggest problem is the stigma; the overall misunderstanding---ignorance of---sex work. And, what ‘kind of woman’ would be involved. Consensual vs non-consensual, as a reality, is huge; I’m not suggesting otherwise.
But, putting the non-consensual to the side: in the current state of the collective consciousness, “prostitution = sex trafficking = must be eradicated”. And there is no space in that equation that allows for the serious consideration of even the possibility of consensual sex work.
And if there is no allowance for even the possibility of “consensual”, if sex work is only framed as a negative it is difficult, if not impossible, to have constructive dialog about sex work, sex workers, and where lines need to be drawn.
Underlying any “actual” coercion is a very persistent idea that ANY woman engaged in sex work must be doing so only because she has no other viable options. This attitude completely dismisses the reality that many woman choose this work, are doing so because they prefer sex work to other options----and they even enjoy it. And this attitude is not reserved for those other people ‘out there’. You see it on this board all the time.
How could any woman actually enjoy sex work? Or... there is no such thing as a provider with a college degree. Providers are desperate, can’t manage to get a job at the piggly wiggly, or they’re just stupid, etcetera, etcetera, and so on.....
One the one hand, men on TER feel comfortable in the idea that any/all providers advertising on TER are working consensually (which certainly cannot be %100 true). One the other, there are ‘many’ (even providers themselves, on occasion) who reveal their own attitude that the only reason providers are providers is because they have no other options; providers only do this work out of a short-term necessity, or desperation. Sex work is, fundamentally, demeaning. And, for them, this idea is proven out by the very fact that providers exist.
Because if providers did have other options, they would not be here.
Or certainly will not be here for long. And if she is here long term, again, the only explanation is that she has no other choice. So, is she working consensually? or not?
A big part of the problem in de-stigmatizing sex work is not whether there are humans (people of all ages/genders) who are ‘coerced’ into prostitution in some way; whether that means children, or having a passport held until a debt is repaid, or even 'choosing' between sex work and a min wage or underpaying job at (fill in the blank).
It’s the overriding attitudes about sex work itself (and sexuality, in general) that is getting in the way.
And, I’ve said this before: If men on a fckboard, or those who regularly hire sex workers don’t ‘get it’; if they can't get past the stigma themselves, Ma and Pa middle America sure as hell aren’t.
In New Zealand, for example, which is currently the best model for sex worker rights, sex workers are still stigmatized by society there.
While the stigmatization, and the inaccurate stereotypes upon which it is based, are disheartening, the elimination of the stigma is not a necessary requirement for sex worker rights to be gained.
But I do think that, in demonstrating to the judiciary (who will decide the rights questions involved) that many sex workers are consenting adults whose rights are being violated by the criminalization of sex work, it will be helpful to show that the stereotypes about sex workers are inaccurate.
The “idea” of coercion is a construct that is masking the underlying problem. The biggest problem is the stigma; the overall misunderstanding---ignorance of---sex work. And, what ‘kind of woman’ would be involved. Consensual vs non-consensual, as a reality, is huge; I’m not suggesting otherwise.
But, putting the non-consensual to the side: in the current state of the collective consciousness, “prostitution = sex trafficking = must be eradicated”. And there is no space in that equation that allows for the serious consideration of even the possibility of consensual sex work.
And if there is no allowance for even the possibility of “consensual”, if sex work is only framed as a negative it is difficult, if not impossible, to have constructive dialog about sex work, sex workers, and where lines need to be drawn.
Underlying any “actual” coercion is a very persistent idea that ANY woman engaged in sex work must be doing so only because she has no other viable options. This attitude completely dismisses the reality that many woman choose this work, are doing so because they prefer sex work to other options----and they even enjoy it. And this attitude is not reserved for those other people ‘out there’. You see it on this board all the time.
How could any woman actually enjoy sex work? Or... there is no such thing as a provider with a college degree. Providers are desperate, can’t manage to get a job at the piggly wiggly, or they’re just stupid, etcetera, etcetera, and so on.....
One the one hand, men on TER feel comfortable in the idea that any/all providers advertising on TER are working consensually (which certainly cannot be %100 true). One the other, there are ‘many’ (even providers themselves, on occasion) who reveal their own attitude that the only reason providers are providers is because they have no other options; providers only do this work out of a short-term necessity, or desperation. Sex work is, fundamentally, demeaning. And, for them, this idea is proven out by the very fact that providers exist.
Because if providers did have other options, they would not be here.
Or certainly will not be here for long. And if she is here long term, again, the only explanation is that she has no other choice. So, is she working consensually? or not?
A big part of the problem in de-stigmatizing sex work is not whether there are humans (people of all ages/genders) who are ‘coerced’ into prostitution in some way; whether that means children, or having a passport held until a debt is repaid, or even 'choosing' between sex work and a min wage or underpaying job at (fill in the blank).
It’s the overriding attitudes about sex work itself (and sexuality, in general) that is getting in the way.
And, I’ve said this before: If men on a fckboard, or those who regularly hire sex workers don’t ‘get it’; if they can't get past the stigma themselves, Ma and Pa middle America sure as hell aren’t.
40 years ago I would have been classified as a mentally ill person, with a sociopathic disorder, who was committing crimes against nature.
That’s not all that far off from the general ideas about women involved in sex work. They’re either evil/deviant--and most likely not mentally healthy (probably because of all the sexual abuse as a child). Or they are helpless victims.
What other possible explanation could there be?
Yes... there’s some hyperbole in there. But, point being: there is tremendous stigma associated with sex work. There was not a court in this country sympathetic to LGBTQ rights 40 years ago. If I had been been gay bashed and gone to the police, chances are I would have heard something along the lines of “what did you expect?”
That same kind if situation exists for sex workers, today.
What has changed surrounding LGBTQ rights are the attitudes of individual people. An increase in understanding and a decrease in social stigma. A ‘normalization’ of the idea of homosexuality by ‘enough’ of a majority that the judiciary can no longer (easily) justify it’s positions on blatant discrimination.
That doesn’t mean that the negative stigma is completely gone. It might never be. But, it ‘ain’t 1965 anymore either. And, this is not New Zealand. And, the judiciary is not just going to come to it's senses because it's presented with logical arguments.
To gain political ground on sex work, cultural attitudes will have to change
deprive sex workers of their rights.
That’s not all that far off from the general ideas about women involved in sex work. They’re either evil/deviant--and most likely not mentally healthy (probably because of all the sexual abuse as a child). Or they are helpless victims.
What other possible explanation could there be?
Yes... there’s some hyperbole in there. But, point being: there is tremendous stigma associated with sex work. There was not a court in this country sympathetic to LGBTQ rights 40 years ago. If I had been been gay bashed and gone to the police, chances are I would have heard something along the lines of “what did you expect?”
That same kind if situation exists for sex workers, today.
What has changed surrounding LGBTQ rights are the attitudes of individual people. An increase in understanding and a decrease in social stigma. A ‘normalization’ of the idea of homosexuality by ‘enough’ of a majority that the judiciary can no longer (easily) justify it’s positions on blatant discrimination.
That doesn’t mean that the negative stigma is completely gone. It might never be. But, it ‘ain’t 1965 anymore either. And, this is not New Zealand. And, the judiciary is not just going to come to it's senses because it's presented with logical arguments.
To gain political ground on sex work, cultural attitudes will have to change.