Sex trafficking in America
Trafficking right here in the USofA, land of the free – the BBC runs the story of Shandra Woworuntu, who thought she was signing up for a job in a hotel in the US.
She had a job in a bank but then the Asian financial crisis hit and she lost her job.
So to support my three-year-old daughter I started to look for work overseas. That was when I saw an ad in a newspaper for work in the hospitality industry in big hotels in the US, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. I picked the US, and applied.
The requirement was that I could speak a little English and pay a fee of 30m Indonesian rupiahs (in 2001, about $2,700). There was a lengthy recruitment process, with lots of interviews. Among other things they asked me to walk up and down and smile. “Customer service is the key to this job,” I was told.
She arrived at JFK with four other women, and the guy who met them took her passport and all her other documents. Then there was a change of cars and drivers, then another, then another.
The fourth driver had a gun. He forced us to get in his car and took us to a house in Brooklyn, then rapped on the door, calling “Mama-san! New girl!”
By this time I was freaking out, because I knew “Mama-san” meant the madam of a brothel. But by this time, because of the gun, there was no escape.
The door swung open and I saw a little girl, perhaps 12 or 13, lying on the ground screaming as a group of men took turns to kick her. Blood poured from her nose and she was howling, screaming in pain. One of the men grinned and started fooling around with a baseball bat in front of me, as if in warning.
And just like that, she was enslaved. There was always a man with a gun nearby, so they couldn’t escape.
The traffickers were Indonesian, Taiwanese, Malaysian Chinese and American. Only two of them spoke English – mostly, they would just use body language, shoves, and crude words. One thing that especially confused and terrified me that night, and that continued to weigh on me in the weeks that followed, was that one of the men had a police badge. To this day I don’t know if he was a real policeman.
They told me I owed them $30,000 and I would pay off the debt $100 at a time by serving men. Over the following weeks and months, I was taken up and down Interstate 95, to different brothels, apartment buildings, hotels and casinos on the East Coast. I was rarely two days in the same place, and I never knew where I was or where I was going.
Is she a SWERF to say all this? Is she whorephobic to talk about it?
I remember the first time I was ushered into a casino hotel room, I thought perhaps I would be able to make a run for it when I came out. But my trafficker was waiting for me in the corridor. He showed me into the next room. And the next one. Forty-five minutes in each room, night after night after night, the trafficker always waiting on the other side of the door.
Because I was compliant, I was not beaten by my traffickers, but the customers were very violent. Some of them looked like they were members of the Asian mafia, but there were also white guys, black guys, and Hispanic guys. There were old men and young university students. I was their property for 45 minutes and I had to do what they said or they hurt me.
What I endured was difficult and painful. Physically, I was weak. The traffickers only fed me plain rice soup with a few pickles, and I was often high on drugs. The constant threat of violence, and the need to stay on high alert, was also very exhausting.
There’s a great deal more. Then one day an escort got careless and she was able to run away down the street. She went to the police and they told her to go away, she went to the Indonesian consulate, they did nothing. She lived on the streets and told people her story. Finally one guy believed her and got the cops to listen to her.
He had spoken to the FBI, and the FBI had phoned the police precinct. We were to go that minute to the station, where the officers would try to help me.
So Eddy drove me there, and two detectives questioned me at length. I showed them my diary with details of the location of the brothels, and the books of matches from the casinos where I had been forced to work. They phoned the airline and immigration, and they found that my story checked out.
“OK,” they said in the end. “Are you ready to go?”
“Go where?” I asked.
“To pick up your friends,” they replied.
So she directed them to that brothel in Brooklyn.
It was just like a scene from a movie, except instead of watching it on TV I was looking out of the window of a parked car. Outside the brothel, there were undercover police pretending to be homeless people – I remember one of them pushing a shopping trolley. Then there were detectives, armed police and a Swat team with sniper rifles lurking nearby.
I can enjoy it now, but at the time I was very tense, and worried that the police would enter the building and find that nothing was happening there that night. Would they think I was lying? Would I go to jail, instead of my persecutors?
A police officer dressed as a customer pressed the buzzer to the brothel. I saw Johnny appear in the doorway, and, after a brief discussion, swing open the metal grille. He was instantly forced back into the blackness. Within seconds, the whole team of police had swept up the steps and into the building. Not a single shot was fired.
An hour passed. Then I was told I could get out of the car and approach the building. They had covered one of the windows with paper and cut a hole in it for me to look through. In this way, I identified Johnny and the girls working in the brothel without being seen. There were three women there, Nina among them.
Let me tell you that when I saw those women emerge from the building, naked except for towels wrapped around them, it was the greatest moment of my life. Giving birth is a miracle, yes, but nothing compares to the emotions I experienced as my friends gained their freedom. In the flashing blue and red lights of the police cars, we were dancing, yelling, screaming for joy!
Johnny and two other men were convicted.
She works to help victims of trafficking, but there are obstacles.
We urgently need to educate Americans about this subject. Looking back on my own experiences, I think all those casino and hotel workers must have known what was going on. And that brothel in Brooklyn was in a residential area – did the neighbours never stop to ask why an endless stream of men came to the house, night and day?
The problem is that people see trafficked women as prostitutes, and they see prostitutes not as victims, but criminals. And in cities, people turn a blind eye to all sorts of criminality.
We might start by putting men who pay for sex in jail. After that brothel in Brooklyn was raided many sex buyers were interviewed, but all were later released.
Nowadays, men who are caught in the act are sent to a one-day session called John School. It’s not really punishment, but it teaches them how to identify children in brothels, and women being coerced into sex work. Good – but not good enough. I think men who pay for sex with trafficked women or men should have their names put on a public list, just like they do for child abusers and sexual predators.
“Intersectional” feminists please note.
Wait, users of prostitutes aren’t put on sex offender lists? Aren’t prostitutes put on sex offender lists?
I doubt very many customers could have been unaware the prostitutes were being forced.
Where exactly are these alleged feminists that either don’t oppose human trafficking and sex slavery, or that remain somehow ignorant that that human trafficking and sex slavery are evils that exist in the world?
@ 3 Daniel Schealler
As with many posts here, the reader is assumed to have some prior context.
Yet another example proving that most sex trade “workers” are in fact sex slaves toiling for pimps and other criminals, almost all of them male.
@Silentbob
I’ve now read and the content of the statement from EUSA Women’s Liberation Group (EWLG), and Ophelia’s post on the subject.
I agree that we shouldn’t not talk about human sex trafficking.
I don’t think that the article from EWLG made the argument that we shouldn’t talk about human sex trafficking.
The statement is clearly raising concern that speakers at an event about human trafficking may use a conversation about sex trafficking to put forward an agenda of ending demand for sex work through criminalization. They state that they have this concern because some of the speakers at the event are from organizations that explicitly hold that position combined with the lack of any speakers from organizations formed by sex workers themselves.
Did you even read the EWLG statement before you linked me to Ophelia’s article on the subject?
EWLG’s agenda supports the position that sex workers are best protected through decriminalization and regulation. The agenda they perceive at a university event is at odds with their own. They were concerned about this, so released a clearly worded statement about their position and their concerns.
I see nothing nefarious in any of this.
The disagreement is not about if we should support and protect sex workers – which is what the tone here seems to imply the disagreement is about.
The disagreement is about how we should support and protect sex workers. Some say criminalize the workers. Some say criminalize everyone involved except the workers. Others say decriminalize and regulate.
I can understand why someone might disagree with the position of “decriminalize and regulate”: If there’s a worker that has been trafficked to a developed nation for sex work, where her family is under threat if she doesn’t comply and lie about her willing consent to authorities, then this can fall through the regulatory cracks in a system that is intended to protect people from that kind of mistreatment. The question of whether or not regulation can effectively protect sex workers from this kind of exploitation is a meaningful one. So I don’t deny the validity of the conversation or the disagreement.
My issue is that the disagreement is being put forward unfairly.
When Ophelia wants to talk about gender, bodies, and the link (or lack thereof) between them, she gets branded as a TERF.
When EWLG takes the position that the best way to support and protect sex workers is through decriminalization and regulation, they get branded as being somehow being opposed to any form of anti-sex-trafficking position, when they very clearly are not.
As for context, the opinion I am most familiar with among feminists that support the decriminalization of sex work is that of Greta Christina. Relevant section:
That’s the position that I am most familiar with among feminists that support the decriminalization of sex work.
I’m yet to see any additional contextual information that justifies casting vague insinuations that such feminists are somehow supportive of or in denial about sex trafficking.
@ 6 Daniel Schealler
What you quoted from Ophelia was sarcasm (though making a serious point).
The implication is that in their zeal to be sex-positive and destigmatize sex workers, some feminists paint too rosy a picture of prostitution and gloss over abuses. Other feminists who want to focus on abuses are labelled “whorephobic” and “SWERF”s.
Ophelia is aware of Greta’s writings on the topic. I think it’s fair to say this is one area in which they sharply disagree. Ophelia supports the “Nordic model”, for example.
Well, this is a horror show.
But the relevant question isn’t whether slavery is bad (It is).
Or even whether prostitution is bad (Yes. No. Maybe. I don’t know.)
The relevant question is whether making prostitution illegal helps. And I’m not convinced that it does.
I think it would be a lot harder harder to run a sex-slave brothel in a place where prostitution is legal. You can’t compete in the legal market: there’s too much visibility. And if you try to stay invisible, then how will your clients find you? Why would they bother?
Yes, I am aware of Greta’s writing on the topic, and I’m aware that that post was a nasty attack on Taslima, one that made me acutely uncomfortable at the time. I didn’t know it then but it was a warning of what was to come.
I never did think it was a good look for a safe American to try to school a Bangladeshi in exile because of more than two decades of threats on her life, and especially not on a shared blog network.
In kind of related news, has anyone seen this story (http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/31/11336466/drone-vigilante-sex-worker-oklahoma-arrested)?
A campaigner, supposedly under the guise of protecting vulnerable and forced into prostitution women goes around filming prostitutes and Johns and posts the video to his website (which he makes money from). In this case he used a drone to get the footage.
Fuck him. Fuck this shit. Fuck the society that allows such a messed up combination of circumstances. Fuck it that it is the women that has ended up in prison.
@SilentBob
I agree that that’s wrong.
There is more than one reasonable and justified opinion to be held on the subject of how best to support and protect sex workers.
When a proponent of ‘decriminalize and regulate’ labels someone who thinks the best way to protect sex workers is to criminalize the customers as a SWERF, that’s a misrepresentation.
At the same time, when a proponent of ‘criminalize the customers’ acts as if someone from the decriminalize-and-regulate crowd is ignorant or malicious regarding sex worker safety and sex trafficking, that’s also a misrepresentation.
All I am arguing for is consistency.
—————————————————————-
@Ophelia Benson
I can’t see a single thing in Greta’s post to which I linked that reads as nasty.
If anything, she goes out of her way to be as generous and welcoming as humanly possible while disagreeing.
For example:
“Dammit to hell. I really, really didn’t want my first reply to something by Taslima Nasreen to be an argument. I have tremendous respect for the woman and her work, and I would have loved for my first piece on her work to be gushing and adoring.”
“In fact, if Nasreen wanted to claim that it often is all these things, I probably wouldn’t argue with that.”
“Yes. Prostitution is often abusive and exploitative. I absolutely stand with you against any form of prostitution that is enslaving, patriarchal oppression, violent, not freely chosen, abusive, or in any way harmful. I am eager to find solutions to the all-too-common abuse and exploitation of prostitutes. But these solutions need to be based in reality. They cannot be based in the denial of the real experience of thousands upon thousands of people.”
Also, the follow up comment from Ed Brayton below at position number one:
“And don’t worry about disagreement among us, it’s healthy (as I’m sure you know; I understand your sentiment). I have some disagreements with Taslima on a few things as well, but that does not diminish my enormous respect for her courage and her intellect. I’m sure we all have disagreements on particular things despite sharing a lack of belief in god. We can have those disagreements publicly and civilly and continue to admire and respect one another.”
I’m not arguing that everyone at FtB is perfect with regards to this all the time.
However, in that particular case, I can’t see a single element of nastiness. All I see there is respectful disagreement.
So either I’m missing something (which is definitely possible) or you’re misinterpreting respectful disagreement as nastiness. Or possibly a third option I haven’t considered yet.
So which is it?
——————————————–
Disclaimer: I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything, so I’ve been holding off on bringing my own views into this. However, that silence might be causing people to misread me. So I want to clarify my position on this.
As far as I know, there’s three general ‘models’ that have been tried regarding sex work. The default model of criminalizing the sex workers themselves is a ‘blame the victim’ strategy I think we all disagree with. The Nordic model of criminalizing the customers and pimps and brothel owners but not the workers makes a lot of sense if we view all prostitutes as victims of coercion. The New Zealand model of decriminalizing prostitution altogether and regulating it carefully makes a lot of sense if we want to support and protect consensual sex workers while also resisting the non-consensual sex trade.
Conceptually I prefer the New Zealand model to the Nordic model, because it admits to and supports the existence of mutually consensual sex work. It allows consensual sex work to exist, which can fulfill the demand for sex work ethically. This creates competition for the nonconsensual sex trade, which makes illegal sex trade less lucrative.
The Nordic model does also make sense as a concept though. I can understand the position that says that, even if a small number of prostitutes are consensual, the large majority of sex work is coerced in one form or another. If the cost of protecting the majority of nonconsensual sex workers is to de-legitimize the smaller minority of consensual sex workers, then that may be considered a fair price to pay for the common good. Another argument that also makes sense is to do with survival: We do not allow the purchase or sale of human organs for transplant because we know that this would disadvantage the poor who may be tempted to sell their organs for survival needs. A similar logic can apply to the idea of survival-based prostitution.
Concepts aside, we also need to consider outcomes. Both models have been attempted and their results studied.
To my (admittedly non-expert) knowledge, the Nordic model has not eliminated the sex trade in Sweden. The customer base has shrunk. The customer base left over are those that are comfortable breaking the law – and as a result, the remaining customer base is on average more violent than previously. Sex workers have less time to screen clients. The fall in demand (smaller customer base) as well as increased risk for the customer base have caused prices to fall. Generally, sex workers in Sweden report that their fears of violence have increased.
The New Zealand model hasn’t been perfect either. One of the intentions of decriminalization is that sex workers are expected to come forward with complaints for due process in a system that protects the sex workers. There is inconsistent evidence on whether or not this is actually happening, believed to be attributed to the social stigma associated with announcing ones self to be a prostitute in a public forum, combined with a reputation stigma that may be in place where sex workers fear they may lose customers if they move forward with complaints. However, while not perfect system, the New Zealand model hasn’t fallen prey to the same problems as the Nordic model has done. And it has had some successes – I can recall a story where a man who removed a condom during sex without the sex worker’s knowledge or consent was successfully prosecuted and charged, although the specific details escape me.
The evidence I’ve seen agrees with my original stance on the two models conceptually, which is of course a red flag for cognitive bias. And I’m a non-expert – there could be additional data with which I am unfamiliar. So I’m not announcing this to be a case-closed or anything like that.
My current position – based on the concepts and my perception of the evidence regarding outcomes – is that the New Zealand model is superior to the Nordic model when it comes to protecting the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers.
At the same time, the Nordic model is still vastly better than the model of criminalizing the sex workers themselves but not their clients. So my preference for the New Zealand model shouldn’t be read as a belief that the Nordic model is inherently flawed or terrible. Which is to say: I do not think that preferring the Nordic model, in and of itself, is grounds to believe someone is whorephobic. As I state above, there is good thought that goes into the Nordic model, it’s not completely unreasonable or anything like that.
My thinking that the New Zealand model is better does not imply that I think the Nordic model is somehow terrible, or that the people who support that model are terrible.
I am opposed to the view that feminists who support the Nordic model are whorephobics or SWERFS.
I am equally opposed to the view that feminists who support the New Zealand model are supportive of or in denial about sex trafficking.
There’s nastiness that gets thrown in both directions in these kinds of disagreements. I’m not trying to persuade anyone that the New Zealand model is better than the Nordic model. I’m trying to persuade people that there’s sound basis for disagreement on each side in this – that it is possible for people who prioritize the health, safety and human rights of sex workers to disagree about this in good faith. So nasty labeling and casting shade at one another, in either direction, is uncalled for.
And having been the target of nasty labels does not justify casting vaguely imprecise yet definitely insulting implications back the other way.
@Rob
Yep. You have my complete agreement.
@ 11 Daniel Schealler
I understand that. I’ve been a bit grumpy about what I perceive to be misrepresentations of decriminalisation advocates myself.
In this case I think Ophelia was mocking misrepresentation going the other way. Some feminists — Kate Smurthwaite is a name that is often mentioned — are considered “whorephobic” or whatever for wanting to call attention to horror stories like the one in the OP, although it would be hard to make a case that they actually hate prostitutes.
Daniel, I’ve certainly read comments online originating from within the decriminalise/legalise crowd that have drawn no distinction between criticising the negative effects and root causes if prostitution and being a SWERF, prude or worse. The vitriol can be quite astounding.
I used to think the NZ framework was very good. I can certainly see some drawbacks to the Nordic system. However, my current view has certainly swung back closer to the Nordic model. I have to say I really don’t have the expertise to judge how best to craft a frame work that would satisfy and protect all comers.
I think the main reason the NZ system works as well as it does is because we are physically isolated from the worst of the human trafficking routes and we have fairly robust laws, a small population and immigrants stand out very clearly. Problems on any large scale are going to immediately apparent. Frankly I doubt our system would work at all well transported to Europe, the USA or elsewhere.
Based on what I’ve read and heard, including candid interviews with current and former sex workers, I very much doubt many women would willingly choose prostitution over other financially and socially secure options if they had them. Some would for sure. If and when such options are universally and demonstrably available I’ll support full legalisation. That will require an end to poverty and domestic violence and much better levels of education.