The dignity of man is in free choice. – Max Frisch
One of the most important negative effects of the popular concept that sex is somehow magically different from all other behaviors is the modern fixation on pimps. The nightmares of neofeminists and the masturbatory fantasies of trafficking fetishists teem with brutal (and usually dark-skinned) men who force women into prostitution, despite the fact that (as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions) the abusive, controlling pimp of legend is so rare we can consider him an anomaly. In fact, the fraction of prostitutes who have such an abusive pimp – roughly 1.5% – is so similar to the percentage of women who report that their husbands/boyfriends are either “extremely violent” (1.2%) or “extremely controlling” (2.3%) that it’s pointless to consider them a different phenomenon, especially when one considers that any non-client male found in the company of a whore will inevitably be labeled a “pimp” by cops or prohibitionists. The notion that hookers only have relationships with a certain kind of man, who is labeled a “pimp” by outsiders, derives from the Victorian fallacy (alas, still alive today) that we are somehow innately “different” from other women, and therefore our men are different as well. This is pure nonsense; the only consistent difference between the husbands of harlots and those of amateurs is that ours tend to be less hung up about sex.
Yet the myth, anchored as it is in prohibitionist mythology, male insecurity and Hollywood stereotypes, is a persistent and pernicious one, affecting even those who recognize that most prostitutes are in the trade voluntarily. A great deal of the milder trafficking rhetoric revolves around locating and identifying “sex slaves” and penetrating their supposed “brainwashing” in order to “rescue” them, and judges and prosecutors stumble all over themselves when endeavoring to come up with inane and tautological justifications for persecuting so-called “pimps” whom they concede were fair businessmen who worked to protect their girls. Even among many independent internet-based escorts there’s a low-level hysteria about pimps (as though a man somehow has the power to reach through their cell phones and abduct them into a third-world brothel), and more than one reader has asked how he can avoid “pimped” girls.
I recently received another question of this type, but this time rather than feeding into the false dichotomy of “free” vs. “coerced”, I’ve decided to cut to the heart of the dilemma. The reader asked, “Is there even a grain of truth in this trafficking stuff, some ‘dark side’ I haven’t really seen despite my extensive experience? If this stuff DOES happen – how do guys who pay for sex make sure they’re not contributing to hurting a woman this way?”
For the most part, so-called “trafficking” is just people crossing borders to work, sometimes without proper documentation but not always. This doesn’t mean that every woman in every brothel is there because she wants to be and for no other reason, but does anyone believe that most women who work as hotel maids or Wal-Mart clerks are there out of free choice? Of course not, but neither were they abducted from their homes, carried off into bondage, threatened and all that jazz. Yes, there are a few examples of extreme coercion which are repeated endlessly by the fanatics, often exaggerated or with details omitted, and sometimes even rephrased so as to look like new ones. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, women do sex work for the same reason they do any other kind of work: because they need money. The number of women who are “coerced” into sex work is no higher than the number “coerced” into any other kind of work. If you’re at Wal-Mart, how do you know your cashier doesn’t have a lazy boyfriend at home who forces her to work and takes her money? You don’t. And are you somehow wrong or immoral for checking your purchases out in her line if she does?
Let’s imagine a barbershop which caters to a male clientele; they just do regular haircuts, nothing fancy, but all the barbers are female. Guys come in, get their hair cut, talk to the barbers, perhaps know their names. Maybe a guy even has a favorite girl who always cuts his hair; she does a good job, is friendly and she’s nice to look at, too. But what does he really know about her? Only what she cares to tell him, and nothing more. He doesn’t know what financial pressures she’s under, how much high-interest debt she has, how psychologically stable she is, if she was sexually abused as a child, whether she’s in the country legally, whether her boss treats her fairly and what her boyfriend is like. And you know what? None of that is any of his business unless she volunteers it; it’s outside the bounds of polite business conversation. If his barber is under financial or emotional duress, is he somehow responsible? After all, men don’t need to cut their hair; their demand for haircuts has created a market in which poor women are exploited to do work they may hate and possibly don’t want to do.
What if his barber actually has a degree in philosophy from an expensive school which she incurred massive student-loan debt to obtain, and is under threat of arrest from the government if she defaults, but she can’t get a job in this economy so she’s struggling with a debt which at her current rate of repayment will literally never be discharged? Is she in “debt bondage”, and is the federal government a “pimp” or “human trafficker” for telling her she needs to pay off her debt or else? If her parents cosigned those loans, the federal “traffickers” even keep her in line with threats to harm her family. And if a man gets a haircut from her, is he “enabling” that situation…or is he contributing toward her survival until she can find something which pays better?
Adult women are ADULTS. It isn’t the job of strangers, nor that of “rescue” organizations or the government, to police their private lives. The essence of freedom, of individuality, of adulthood, is self-determination, and to deny a person that is to infantilize her. It’s unfortunate that some people get into bad situations, often through no fault of their own. But unless the victim of such misfortune wants and asks for help, it is demeaning and abusive to force it upon her under the premise that her “rescuer” is better or smarter or wiser or more mature or saner than she is, and therefore more qualified to make decisions for her than she is for herself. Furthermore, it’s both rude and arrogant for a stranger to presume he has the right to question her on her financial situation, reasons for working and conditions of her relationships with men. Nobody would behave in such a way toward a barber…so why do people think it’s OK or even necessary to do it to a prostitute?
Ask yourself: Is sex degrading or dehumanizing? Is work? Is being paid? No? Then how can sex work be? Why doesn’t the U.S. government prosecute Nike for its sweatshops in Southeast Asia or Apple for its sweatshops in China, and why aren’t these countries placed on “watchlists” by the State Department for allowing them to exist? Why don’t we see campaigns to “end demand” for sneakers or iPhones? Because they don’t involve sex, and that is the only difference.
One Year Ago Today
“Lack of Evidence” examines the wide variety of behaviors, circumstances and personal possessions that police represent as “evidence” of prostitution.
I actually saw almost this exact thing when I was in the Navy. Young kids would show up on the boat … slated for assignment to the deck division but, when I looked at their records – they had very damn good degrees from pretty good institutions. So in the check-in interview, I’d essentially ask them why in the hell they volunteered to go into deck division – which is dirty work centered around chipping and painting the exterior of the ship.
And the answer was frequently the same … (A) I have MASSIVE college debt that the Navy is promising to pay off for me by joining. (B) I also have MASSIVE credit card debt that I’m delinquent on – and this keeps me from getting a SECRET clearance, which is required for Officers and most of the enlisted jobs on the ship.
You may ask – “why was the Navy willing to pay off their college debts?” And the answer would be – because the Chief of Naval Operations at the time wanted to increase the number of college graduates in the enlisted force. Now, just think about that – you hire a kid with a college degree and turn him into a “difficult, dangerous and dirty jobs” guy … what does that really DO to improve the force? How does his (or her) degree add any value to that menial job? In fact, many of these kids were bookworms and were terrified of the work we gave them – they didn’t fit in well at all.
And, although it’s not supposed to happen anymore – I know for a fact there are still judges out there who give kids a choice between a criminal conviction and jail … and joining the military.
Are these kids “trafficked” by the U.S. government? Strictly speaking – I think they are – and in the classic sense of the term. In fact, when they misbehaved … my Commanding Officer was authorized to lock them up and place them on “bread and water” rations for up to three days at a time. He could take half of their monthly pay (for up to two months) … and even restrict their movements to the ship only. And he could do this without any trial by jury whatsoever – just on his own judgement.
Sounds like something an angry pimp might do to a misbehaving hooker … huh?
In fact, if you read all the “horror stories” about how women are bullied into trafficking – you’ll find a lot of the same themes are used by military recruiting. “You’re in debt – join and we’ll pay off that debt.” … “You’re about to go to jail, join and we’ll talk to that judge for you.” … “Hey, we can give you a REALLY good job as a Navy SEAL – CHICKS LOVE SEALS YOU KNOW!” (classic “bait and switch” trafficking scheme – since only about 25% of the kids off the street can actually pass the SEAL training – the other 75% we sent them off to be basically security guards in places like Diego Garcia.) … “Your mom has cancer and needs treatment? Well, you know … if you join the military you can make her your dependent and we’ll pay for her treatment!”
Believe me now – I’m not saying these things to slam the military – absolutely not (though it’s no surprise that recruiters use some pretty interesting methods that I don’t agree with fully) … but the reason I make the analogy here – is just to highlight how ridiculous the whole trafficking issue is and how broad the definition has become – it’s broad enough to even indict Uncle Sam.
Though months have expired since your wrote it, what a great reply, Krulak!
In essence, all of us who pay a portion of our income taxes to the Feds and States are whores, being pimped out by the very governments who require a percentage of our earnings.
Whether in the military or ‘private sector’ all of us, unless rich enough to avoid a paycheck, are whores.
So why does it matter what one is selling provided one pays what the pimp requires???
One of your best! I’ve used the barber analogy myself sometimes, but never fully developed it as you have here.
I think it’s pertinent to ask, however, whether, and if so how and in what circumstances, the state should intervene?
I am perhaps less inclined than you to entirely red card the state and send it off for an early shower, for in my view, the state does have a role to play, in, for example:
– the protection of minors (we could argue the toss over age limits) and other persons unable to exercise consent
– the promotion of health (safe sex practices etc)
– the reduction of violence (‘safe exit’ courses seem to me to be after the event – what is needed is safe entry courses!)
– mediation with stakeholders, including the community
Indeed, I think the prevention and inhibition of much of the above as a result of criminalisation is among the most potent weapons in the armoury of those of us who advocate decriminalisation.
Thank you, Stephen! My big problem with statism is that we’re all forced to participate at the point of a gun. If there were alternatives, other places one could go to live under more or less compulsion, I wouldn’t be so averse to some dictatorships existing for those who like being told what to do. But those who claim that only the state has the right to use coercion, compulsion and violence to enforce its whims are, I think, on very shaky philosophical ground.
That having been said, the only one of those I might agree on is age limits, within reason; the others either create unenforceable laws (which can only be enforced by spying and other civil rights violations) or aren’t any of Big Brother’s business (i.e., unless amateurs are fined for unsafe sex how can semi-pros be?)
I wasn’t necessarily meaning criminal justice interventions, which I consider highly undesirable but nonetheless a necessary evil in extreme circumstances. I think New Zealand (could be New South Wales) has legally mandatory condom use in its commercial sex industry, though I imagine the practical effect is simply to substantially strengthen the bargaining position of sex workers wishing to insist on them, which is no bad thing.
I don’t think the massive over-egging of the stats by the neo-feminists et al should blind us to the fact that violence and coercion does happen. A decriminalised scenario would clearly reduce this, by enabling its reporting, but if the state does not respond to such reports, protection rackets will.
Then there’s the question of drug intervention, esp in the street scene. It’s pretty obvious that the US criminal justice system can only nurture aspirations in this area to be about as useful as a fanny on a bull, but that doesn’t mean that constructive interventions cannot be made by other agencies of the state.
This argument… it doesn’t just apply to sex work, it speaks to the core of all government “interventions” that make choices that the people being “protected” didn’t.
It is my considered opinion that the best working definition of “evil” is “the desire to establish control over another that the subject neither desires nor requires.”
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis
OK, now I better understand some of you replies to me back in “Pigeonholes.” I hope I set your mind at ease when I said that yes, anything that applies to hookers applies to cashiers, burger flippers, candlestick makers and so on.
Krulac take note: I initially included soldiers on that list, but then replaced them with vegetable pickers. I didn’t want to get into stop loss, much less the draft. We don’t currently have a draft, but we can.
Actually, I look at the military almost exactly the same way I look at taxes: a necessary evil which it would be nice if we could do without, but we can’t, so we need to keep it under control (i.e., NOT use it as a jobs program with systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want getting crammed down the collective throat of our armed forces because a congressman like having a factory in his district, and sure as HELL not let the military do domestic law enforcement or conduct trials of our citizens arrested on our own soil).
Is she in “debt bondage”, and is the federal government a “pimp” or “human trafficker” for telling her she needs to pay off her debt or else? If her parents cosigned those loans, the federal “traffickers” even keep her in line with threats to harm her family.
Here’s an interesting wrinkle in the new federal loan program. My bookkeeper cosigned on one of the loans that his daughter-in-law used for school. It was about 12K worth. When the loans were consolidated, he found himself on the hook for the entire amount – about 72K – as a cosigner. There was no consent from him asked or required. The govt just unilaterally assigned the debt to him.
I think that we are going to see the govt using student loans as leverage for social engineering in a similar fashion to how they are using them to push folks into the military as Krulac detailed.
Want student loan forgiveness? Well, then, you just hafta work for a decade in the subpar regional government program of our choice and at the wages we dictate.
The whole student loan system is just a means of transferring wealth from the middle class to the university system. It is almost impossible for a person to work their way through college anymore. And it is the 3rd party payer system that the student loan system represents that allowed the inflation of tuition to the current impossible levels. It isn’t accidental that the two sectors in the American economy that have massively outpaced inflation in their rocketing prices both involve a 3rd party payer system.
Oh, and here’s another joker in the Obama-care deck. You remember the provision that mandated that “children” be kept on the family insurance program until they are 26 years old? This medical coverage is used as a proxy for family income and had the net effect of bumping more middle class families out of the educational grant range1 and into the student loan range. Just one more volley launched at the middle class. Did the proponents of that amendment to the Obama-care fiasco mention that consequence?
1For the record, I do not think that the government should be handing out educational grants or fronting or administering student loans. These are the reasons for the skyrocketing tuition rates. When you subsidize something, you not only get more of it, you make it more expensive for those trying to pay their own way. Which breeds more dependence which plays into the hands of the government student loan traffickers…
I’d say a lot of the “trafficking” hysteria can be traced to the following factor. A young woman is arrested for prostitution, and it’s found that she’s in the country illegally (came in w/o doing paperwork, expired tourist visa, whatever). Is she going to say “hell, yeah, I planned to flout your laws to make money,” or is she going to claim “oh, me, oh, my, I was trafficked here by evil pimps who forced me into that awful brothel and beat me and took all my money and made me sign bad checks and deceptive home-repair contracts”?
I know which tack I’d try in that situation.
Well, sort of. They didn’t invent the script, which has been floating around among credulous white people since the early 1880s. But they certainly agree to it when asked questions that lead in that direction.
Granted, “trafficking” is a mostly, maybe entirely unfounded myth.
Nevertheless your barber shop “simile” fails because it doesn’t contain the one thing that makes slavery possible (and, in fact, is known to create slavery in other businesses such as the drug trade): illegality, which means that those engaged in the profession don’t dare call the police for help, unless the alternative in a particular situation is worse than the punishment the police are likely to inflict.
So the simile I’d draw is to a crack house, where the day-to-day workers are locked inside by their manager (who visits only occasionally, to protect himself against a bust).
Of course, in both cases one has to wonder how many of the alleged slaves are in fact making up the story of slavery as a way to get off after they get caught.
Even if you’re right, though, I think I’ll still stick to the legal operations, not least because there are women fraudsters who pretend to be in the business, too, and the customers of illegal whores don’t dare call the police either.
The problems with that comparison are manifold. First, whores are NOT usually “locked in a house” by anyone; trafficking alarmists expect us to believe they come and go, yet are still enslaved. Second, those who are “rescued” by said alarmists generally fight them and have to be locked up to keep them from going back to their jobs. Third, the alarmists insist that legalization and decriminalization actually increase trafficking, even in countries such as the Netherlands or New Zealand where sex workers have plenty of recourse to the police.
The barbershop example isn’t intended to represent true enslavement, which is indeed largely made possible by criminalization; it’s intended to portray the actual conditions under which most clients encounter escorts, and the impossibility and wrongfulness of passing judgment on their decisions, lives and relationships.
“There is no way the you possibly know A, B or C and since there no way you you can know, you’d probably shouldn’t be doing it”
Its a fun argument that the antis love to use against us..
A is often fully consenting
B is often sexually abused at childhood
C is often ridiculous & impossible to prove like ‘she won’t regret it in the future’
You make a comparison between visiting a prostitute and visiting a hairdresser or a girl at the counter. I have also wondered why I don’t bother about the hairdresser I visit, or the girl at the counter. While at the same time I feel very guilty about visiting prostitutes. I even wanted to save a prostitute from Latvia once. I had an elaborate plan in my head to buy her some clothes in a shop and to go to her window brothel, and to give her these clothes so that she could leave the brothel not wearing her lingerie but normal clothes. I thought about buying a train ticket for her so that we could travel by train to the place where I live with my parents.
It is true indeed that I never bother about the hairdresser. I have asked the girl who cut my hair once, if she didn’t have any physical problems with her hands because she has to use it so often. She explains that all hairdressers have back problems. Many also have repetitive strain injury. I don’t need to have my hair cut, while hairdressers all suffer physical damage because of their work. So perhaps we should bother about the people whose services we use. If we don’t need it and it hurts people or our environment, perhaps we should contemplate not to use these services.
I still let my hair be cut, but I think about not doing it. Since a couple of years I am also a vegan. I don’t eat any animal products. It is very difficult not to use products or services in which people or animals don’t suffer. But at least we could minimise are consumption, so that people and animals suffer less. And it is also better for our living environment, because our ecological footprint will become smaller. And I believe we should spread all wealth equally so that people who cannot find work or are unwilling to find work can also eat and have a roof above their heads. This way we can also solve the problem of prostitution.
It is funny to see that I’m having no problems not eating any animal products, but I have so many difficulties not masturbating or visiting prostitutes or visiting porn sites.
Your barbershop analogy made a lot of sensible points.
it also reminded me of how I stumbled on the woman who’s been cutting my hair for the last 7 or 8 years. My regular stylist disappeared, and since I was looking for a change anyway, I walked into a new place–very hoity-toity–to find someone who could do it. They seemed to look a bit down their noses at a man walking in without appointment or referral, so when they asked who I would like to have cut my hair I answered, “whoever is the most attractive”. They rolled their eyes again and gave me to a petite, big-breasted (enhanced she later revealed) young woman who turned out to be dynamite in every way. She now runs her own hoity-toity place and I count her amongst my favorite professional acquaintances.
[…] it’s the exploitation which is bad, not the relationship itself. In my column “Thought Experiment” I […]
Even though Maggie “imagined” such a barber shop, it’s a real thing: https://www.salonpricelady.com/sport-clips-prices/. And http://www.sportclips.com/.