Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Let's Call 'Sex Tourism' What It Really Is: Slavery

By Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Rodale Inc. Posted August 1, 2008.


The new book Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated exposes the gravity of sexual slavery -- evil in its extreme.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women's Lives Aren't Getting Any Easier and How We Can Make Real Progress for Ourselves and Our Daughters by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. Published with permission of Rodale Inc.

I began to learn about the truly evil world of sexual slavery in 1999, when the human rights organization Equality Now contacted me about Big Apple Oriental Tours, a travel company based in my district. The name sounds innocuous enough, but this was not your typical tour company. Its clients didn't turn to it for its expertise on restaurants or cultural landmarks. Big Apple's clients were interested in just one attraction: women. And they all could have gone by the same euphemistic name: John.

Big Apple was a "sex tourism" business. It arranged tours of seedy nightclubs in Thailand and the Philippines. These nightclubs were thinly veiled brothels, of course. Big Apple even advertised access to virgins. An Associated Press reporter who viewed one of Big Apple's "promotional videos" reported that it contained a clip of a Filipina woman identifying herself as "17 years young."

From the moment I learned about Big Apple, I wanted to put them out of business.

But in 2000, a gap in the law prompted the Queens District Attorney and U.S. Attorney General to decide against pursuing an indictment against the men who ran Big Apple -- Norman Barabash and Douglas Allen. Based on the laws at that time, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Big Apple's customers traveled "with intent" to have sex with minors -- the threshold for criminal conduct.2

Barabash was so bold that he sent me a letter and brazenly posted it on his Web site. Here's an excerpt.

... have you now exposed your true political affiliation to be the champion of lesbian extremists ... that believe that marriage is sexual servitude and bondage? A school of thought that says all men are rapists, wife beaters and child molesters? A school of thought that has nothing more positive to say about men than that they are the source of all evil in the world? A school of thought that believes it is more important for women to be domineering rulers of society than to be conscientious mothers and wives? A school of thought that is actively working to change the world to a matriarchal dictatorship run by a few rich nags?

I guess he didn't appreciate my interest in his work.

Despite Barabash's swagger, we -- myself, Equality Now, Gloria Steinem, and other committed elected officials -- continued to pursue Barabash and Allen. In 2003, New York's then-attorney general Eliot Spitzer won a temporary restraining order, effectively crippling Big Apple's ability to do business. In early 2004, Barabash and Allen were indicted under New York State law -- the first criminal action of its kind against a sex tourism company. Though the case was dismissed on technical grounds in 2004, Barabash and Allen were reindicted in 2005.

Charges were dismissed in 2006, underscoring the need for stronger laws. But the process sent a strong message to sex tourism companies across the nation that their actions will be scrutinized and that it might be best to close up shop.

Learning about sex tourism gave me a window onto a broader world that extends into the darkest reaches of the human soul and takes its victims to the outer limits of human suffering -- sex trafficking, a legal term that is really just a euphemism for sexual slavery.

More people in the world may be enslaved today than there were in the 19th century (some estimates run as high as 27 million). The largest categories of extant slavery, sex slavery and domestic servitude slavery, overwhelmingly affect women and girls. Sex tourism is a significant driver of sex slavery, the third-largest and fastest-growing source of revenue for organized crime -- a vicious criminal industry that President Bush rightly calls "a special evil."

Nuch was working as a maid in Bangkok when a trafficker promising her a lucrative job in a Thai restaurant lured her to Tokyo. The young woman, who had only a fourth-grade education, was told that she would merely have to pay off a small debt for expenses when she got to Tokyo. But once in Japan, she was robbed of her passport, fed birth control pills, and coerced into working as a prostitute at two late-night snack bars. She had to sexually service several often drunk and dirty customers a night. And she was stuck: The more money she made, the more her captors increased her "debt."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex trafficking, slavery, equality now

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney has helped pass legislation to end trafficking, improve women's health, guard women's reproductive rights, expand affordable childcare and create a human rights commission in Afghanistan.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sex tourism?
Posted by: leta on Aug 1, 2008 2:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like when women visit Africa or Jamaica?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex tourism? Posted by: richholland
Let's call it what it is instead.
Posted by: Livemike on Aug 1, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual slavery is a bad thing, and no doubt you think sex tourism is a bad thing but that doesn't justify conflating them. Sexual slavery is defined by the use of coercion to get sex for paying customers, sex tourism is defined by the use of airplanes to get sex for paying customers. No doubt there is so overlap, but there is no reason to believe that sex tourism hurts the women who provide the sex. Why would sex with foreigners willing to pay be any more harmful than sex with their countrymen?

Note that: "Charges were dismissed in 2006, underscoring the need for stronger laws. But the process sent a strong message to sex tourism companies across the nation that their actions will be scrutinized and that it might be best to close up shop."
So in other words they did nothing illegal so that means the law should be changed so that what they did is illegal. Wow, no powertripping there. And of course they were put out of business despite not breaking any laws. Wow, you must be so proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A step too far?
Posted by: InfinityDog on Aug 1, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I certainly commend my elected representative for her efforts on this issue, a couple of details from this article trouble me.

As one poster has already noted, because the Queens County D.A. failed to win convictions against the alleged perpetrators, Maloney's conclusion isn't that they are "innocent until proven guilty" but rather "they are guilty, and we need to rewrite the law until it says they are."

The second item that alarms me is this excerpt: Thanks to a provision in the PROTECT (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today) Act, a bill I supported when it passed Congress in 2003, any American who has sex with a minor in a foreign country can go to jail in the United States for 30 years -- billboards greeting visitors in Phnom Penh and Bangkok read "Abuse a child in this country, go to jail in yours."

So, let me get this straight: Our Congress believes that it has the right to police the actions of Americans while they are in other nation's jurisdictions? Does that mean that if an American citizen in Amsterdam avails himself of that city's legally available prostitution and hashish, that he can expect to return home to charges of solicitation and drug possession?

Insisting that U.S. Law has authority beyond America's borders seems to me like a step too far, and I suspect that it might prove to be unconstitutional if put to the test in court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A step too far? Posted by: kk33deg
» RE: A step too far? Posted by: richholland
carefull,carefull
Posted by: richholland on Aug 1, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the netherlands prostitution is legalised.
In Thailand prostitution is not allowed.
Since 1997 there are very strongs laws protecting children and minors.

To organise a trip for sex tourisme can cost you 10 years jail. The worst "sex tourisme"thailand had was during 1965/1975 as a holidayresort for american vietnam soldiers.

90 % of the sex trade in thailand is asian men.
I suppose in a free society sex should be free and no subject to PROFIT making.
Abusing people to have them working in bad situations;
picking the crop, sewings clothes, etc. is modern slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Ah yeah, this old topic again Posted by: richholland
» RE: Ah yeah, this old topic again Posted by: clvngodess
» well said! Posted by: writer7
Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated?
Posted by: Q30 on Aug 1, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So that whole feminism thing has been an complete failure, then? Little progress has been made at all? Still victims after all these years, eh?

If true, that sounds kind of pathetic. Unless the author seems some advantage in falsely claiming victimhood, that is.

Hmm. Could it be that a certain kind of woman needs to claim that she's at a disadvantage because it works in getting her something for nothing? That, just maybe, it works because a lot of men want to avoid being bullied with accusations of sexism? And, furthermore, that tactic works even though it operates contrary to what feminists claim about men's behavior?

Exactly how much of feminism follows the example set by common, everyday bullies?

I know this is going to generate a lot of '1' ratings due to the manifest hostility a lot of Alternet posters have to anyone who dares question the central tenets of hard-core feminist ideology, but DO try and keep the accusations of misogyny to a minimum, okay? Last I checked, criticism of A female author wasn't the same as hating all women no matter how much the mouth-foamers might like to claim that it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why did she have to mention 80 percent are female?
Posted by: willyWilson on Aug 1, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did she feel the need to mention 80 percent of victims are female.From what I have heard in the media those perverts like young boys aswell.She could have just as easily said 20 percent are male.Maybe its due to the fact that its men who perpetrate these acts and she has a deep hatred for men so she felt more strongly in pointing out that the majority of these victims are female.Child exploitation needless to say is evil whether its perpetrated against male or female children, regardless of the gender ratio.I just thought that was an odd thing to mention the ratio of the gender of the victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism, Fascism, and Invisible Sex Slaves
Posted by: Urgelt on Aug 1, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual slavery is horrible. All slavery is horrible. But there is no reason - none - to think that all, most, or even "more than a little" prostitution is connected to slavery, either here or abroad.

The sex trafficking numbers Ms. Moloney cites are unsourced in this excerpt. I do not know if she sources her numbers in her book, but even if she does, it's only fair to point out that nobody really knows how many victims of slavery there are; it's all "estimates." But there is one indication that perhaps the numbers thrown around by extremist feminists are exaggerated.

Since Bush II took office, a very large, high-profile effort has been ongoing in Federal agencies to find and help the swarming "tens of thousands" of sex slaves said by feminists like Ms. Maloney to be in this country.

They can't find them. They're invisible swarming sex slaves.

What's really going on here?

What's going on is the use of alarmist, sensationalist claims to justify increasing state powers at the expense of individual liberties. What's going on is the legislation of morality. What's going on is the extension of state power into other national jurisdictions - which is a characteristic, not of nations, but of empires. What's going on is the promulgation of an ideology rooted in convicton - faith, in other words.

Most extremist feminists are just as interested in shutting down pornography as they are in ending "sex trafficking." A little thing like the 1st Amendment doesn't slow them down a bit.

Add it all up. Extremist feminism is an enabler of America's decline from democracy into fascism. Today's excerpt from Ms. Maloney's book illustrates the feminist-fascist axis perfectly.

Folks, I've never paid for sex. But it's just sex. When adults consent to exchange bodily fluids, whether or not money changes hands, why does anyone think the State should get involved?

Extremist feminism is unwilling to let people make sleazy sexual choices. But there is a tremendous irony in this form of feminism.

Just how secure are women's rights going to be in a fascist America? Not very. Totalitarians operate by fiat, not the rule of law, and beyond the ruling class, you can forget about equal protections.

In other words, extremist feminism, if it succeeds, will bring about its own doom. It's hard to think of anything dumber than that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, it's not...:) Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: No, it's not...:) Posted by: Urgelt
WOW. did someone inadvertently kick over a rock?...
Posted by: lexicon on Aug 1, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tenor of these responses is amazing. I guess the author has a "following" eh?

It would seem that labelling the woman a "vagitarian" or a "carpet-muncher" (both terms I use with the highest respect and love...I enjoy those same activities myself) somehow negates the point that sexual slavery is bad?

I don't know about the rest of you guys...but having sex with a woman who doesn't particularly want to be there just isn't fun. Why do it?

And let's face it...while most all wage work is exploitive, sex wage work just has a 'special' potential to be exploitive, don't you think? I mean, when do you sell your body?...when you have nothing else to sell. It's the last rung above starvation.

You think there MAY be some exploitation going on there? huh?

I'm as wary of governmental overreaching as the next guy...but really, this isn't about our committment to libertarianism.

I'd like to see a law...don't know how exactly you'd word it...that makes it criminal (or at least, subject to forfeiture) to make a "commission" off another person's sex work. Let prostitutes entirely off the hook...they're not getting rich, they're not at fault...but take down the middlemen who are.

Let's face some facts. As long as we have capitalism and "free" markets, we will have sex work. As long as money flows upstream from the bottom to the top, there will be prostitution. And somehow, I don't see the capitalist system changing anytime real soon.

(also, you'd have to word the law in such a way to allow for sex worker unions, or collectives, or whatnot)

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Article has Too Little of a Focus
Posted by: curiousdwk on Aug 1, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the author does a good (though observably biased) job of reporting the problem and attempts to fix the problem, her focus on the remediation is too narrow. She seems to think that the fix has been and is through US law.

Is she ignorant of the strides that the United Nations has made to reveal this problem and address it? The UN, through its agencies and the work of NGOs has done far more to highlight the problem and address them than the US. This seems like another problem of the world is only what is in the US. The UN agencies like UNICEF, UNESCO, and WHO have worked with many NGOs and have succeeded in areas that the US hasn't even approached.

But the author does not sound like a person who is objective, or interested in critical analysis, or in the big picture, or working in collaboration with others. And that is a shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least now we all know who the sickos are :(
Posted by: stellabloo on Aug 1, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I in turn am absolutely offended by the nature of some of these posts - YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE - I can only hope that people around you know you for what you are too :(

I highly recommend Enslaved, a collection of true stories edited by the directors of the American Anti-Slavery Group. It is a real eye-opener, to put it mildly. Slavery crosses many borders. I am not sure if the author is including the millions held indefinitely in Chinese labour camps.

Now, how can any paunchy balding man in his right brain believe that sex with an illiterate poverty-stricken teenager is a consensual act of mutual benefit to both? Is a desperate 17 yr old really capable of making an informed decision to become a prostitute? Did you make it through the article before posting some random froth of hatred at anyone who questioned your right to buy anything or anyone you choose?

If prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, that's great. Why not run sex tours THERE? Could it be that all these 'fighters for male freedom - from basic tenets of human morality' really just prefer to have sex with the underaged, the powerless and frightened?

Sorry to burst your bubble, these attempts to justify their pathological sexual needs only exposes these twisted cowards for what they are :(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pay off the slaves
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 1, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way to ruin the sexual slavery business is to have the slaves turn states evidence, not be locked up for months in solitary, turning tricks with male guards in exchange for a can of Coke from what I've heard of our own state prison system.

What deal could you cut with a slave, say, a refugee from North Korea, who would be a dead woman if they shipped her home? Landed residency in a better country (such as the U.S.) for at least one felony conviction of a pimp? A witness protection program? At some price, women will flip sides.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex tourism nothing new
Posted by: davmills on Aug 1, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It existed--and has revived inself--in pre-Castro Cuba. Not in the sense of tours, but visitors from the U.S. went to Havana for its everything-goes sexual atmosphere, something lacking in the U.S. Dr. Kinsey noted this on a trip there: the American visitors were entranced by a live sexual performance, if only because it was (generally)unavailable in their own country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oops, it's the daily alternet 'Sexbusters' commentary again!
Posted by: logansafi on Aug 1, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual slavery by bad men is running rampant and we need a Prohibitionist Movement led by the moral forces of American feminism to liberate women worldwide. Doesn't alternet ever get tired of posting these crappy commentaries?

It's just male gender bashing and not much else when all is said and done. Alternet is making the Progressive community look like a bunch of small town elderly church ladies by always focusing the discussion in their sick way...

'Clean up these low life men here!' is the only message really being delivered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male response to article validates book's title
Posted by: fatuheeva on Aug 1, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Many of the men responding to this article sure are defensive of their right to screw young asian girls. Very enlightened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would that...
Posted by: kk33deg on Aug 1, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) and Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) would go after Asian sweat shops with this much determination, as far more people are trafficked into them then they are into brothels. Moreover, the conditions are not a whole lot better in, say, a Wal Mart contractor's factory in China than in, say, a brothel Bangkok. Oh, but that would mean going up against Wal Mart, Nike and whole pile of other wealthy multi-nationals, so it will never happen. And, while perhaps Rep. Maloney probably does want to go after sweatshops, Rep. Pryce would fight any such efforts. The coalition that was put together to pass these draconian sex-tourist laws reminds me of Women Against Pornography allying themselves with the Moral Majority to fight porn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Evangelicals going Green Posted by: Zenobia
» RE: vangelicals going Green Posted by: kk33deg
I watched a documentary recently on YouTube
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 1, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The video is produced by the Australian Film Commission and is titled "Sleeping with Cambodia".

I expected to discover that most of the sex trafficking was controlled by sleazy Cambodian pimps who kidnapped the young girls and forced them into the sex trade; however, this is not the case according to the documentary I watched.

As it turns out, most of the girls are sold into slavery by either the Cambodian police or the girl's mother. That's right, the girl's mother. Usually, the mother sells the young girl into slavery in order to pay a debt.

The truth is always stranger than fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah right
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 1, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL, thats the ones you "know" about, now times that by 100 and those are the active ones you dont know about and probably never will.

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why do men do this
Posted by: jareilly on Aug 1, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by which I mean seek out and pay much for sex with compliant asian teens. I know a couple of guys who have gone to Thailand and Cambodia recently and I suspect the food, monkeys and Angkor Wat were not the only draw. They are both single and over 40. Not bad guys really, overall. You wouldn't be afraid or even embarassed to leave your teen daughter with them.

I think it's partly the fantasy factor. The combination of exotic settings, youthful partners, anonymous and brief encounters without strings, a return to a youth they never really had, a simulation of a type of freedom, promised by the sex tourism industry, just the way other industries promise freedom with the purchase of their products (cars, TVs, phones, etc.). The illusion of "Freedom" is, in part, what they are buying, but actual freedom is not what they are getting - with the consumer toys or the asian teens. It's all a big illusion, based tragically enough, I think, on real unmet need, for real satisfaction (hey we're all human), real connection, real freedom, and real privacy too. The "providers" pay a lot to sustain the illusion.

In AA, they say you need a "fearless self-inventory". I'd say this whole society needs a fearless self-inventory. A society completely devoted to the grinding pursuit of wealth is sick inside. It's members internally compartmentalize conflicting parts of their psyches; denial, rationalizations, and externalized blame result. This contributes to religious absolutism and authoritarian politics, which invariably involves externalizing the "evil" onto others ("terrorists"). Meanwhile, the internal conflicts rage on, unresolved and unresolvable under this pathological status quo, this false consciousness, this eternal present (the "end of history"), this maddening homeostatic disequilibrium.

These guys need to grow up and shed their illusions as individuals. Their needs do not justify the suffering of others. The same must be said, however, of our whole society. After all, what does it mean when Cheney tells the world that our "way of life" (hyper-consumption at the world's expense) is "non-negotiable"? Is this any less juvenile and ultimately pathetic than some anonymous middle-aged white guy paying to cavort with asian teens for a week a year?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 1, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree that sex slavery and trafficking of innocent children is a heinous crime, the article is disturbing on several levels and leads me to ask several questions.

The article's author, Representative Maloney, mentions that she tried Norman Barabash and Douglas Allen twice, once in 2004 and 2005.

The indictments were "dismissed on technical grounds in 2004" and again were "dismissed in 2006, underscoring the need for stronger laws."

Representative Maloney is careful not to give us the reason why the charges were dismissed in both cases, nor does she explain why "stronger laws" are necessary.

Why is Representative Maloney reluctant to give us the details? By her own admission she indicted Barabash and Allen twice but failed to gain a conviction. Shouldn't the focus of the investigation be directed toward the men who actually procured the underage girls while traveling overseas?

Is it possible that Barabash and Allen are indeed innocent, while the real criminals, the men who purchased sex from underaged girls while overseas, are allowed to escape justice?

Is it possible that Representative Maloney is a vexatious litigant?

Just asking...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» didn't you get the memo? Posted by: lexicon
» RE: didn't you get the memo? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Answer Posted by: emmas
» RE: Answer Posted by: GuitarBill
"sex worker" and "sex slave" are different
Posted by: ladyoracle on Aug 1, 2008 11:41 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, the tone of most of the responses to this woman-centered article frightens me. If you readers can find it in yourselves to quit bashing the source of this information, the content should bother any so-called "progressive," which I would imagine is the main readership for Alternet.

I am absolutely in favor of legal prostitution in which a woman can decide whether to adopt that form of work and whether to opt out, to have equal protection under the law and proper health benefits for her services, shown by our society to be so desperately sought after.

But what I do not agree with, what any person with any sense of democracy should find apalling, is sex slavery, in which a woman is cocerced into the job under false pretense and forced into the work, not allowed to quit when she chooses, not given the wages she has earned.

If men want to go to countries with legal prostitution and indulge themselves--or do it in countries where it's illegal at thier own peril, then bravo to them, but let the U.S. "sex tourism" racket's pricing not be dependent upon sex slaves in those countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Robert Felix
Posted by: Felis Catus on Aug 2, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex tourism? Is the exploitation of underage individuals just as reprehensible as child labour practices in other industries? How about 'legitimate' "sex tourism", such as the licensed brothels in the State Of Nevada? If our former Governor here in New York State had gone to one of them, would he not still have been in power today? Are'nt there "older" women-looks long since 'faded', who would pay for a night with a 20 or so years old young, sexually active and muscular lover as opposed to an extremely overweight,wealthy balding middle aged man who has forgotten what sex is? Do older affluent females with money who are not entangled in the currently fashionable religious orthodoxies have the same sexual desires as their male counterparts? Are there legal brothels in Nevada that cater to this older affluent female 'trade' as the more "traditional" establishments cater to their husbands, friends, and brothers? If these workers are given same legal and workplace protections as other workers-then what is the problem? Is the desire for 'their' services or the moral aversion to this up to the individual-whether the archetypal "John" or 'horney Mary', his female counterpart?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hypocrites all over the world
Posted by: richholland on Aug 4, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The british glamrocker Gary Glitter will be released on august 19.
The 63 years old Gary is in Vietnam in a jail for 27 monthes because he "bothered"a girl of 11 years and a girl of 12 years old.

In my humble opinion in this case a beating with a stick would be appropriate.
This bloke is sick.
Is this "sex tourisme ???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Europeans always finding new and inventive ways to exploit others
Posted by: 876 on Aug 4, 2008 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to AI sex tourists are white males, Europeans including Americans Australians and now apparently European women as well who think of black males as sex toys rather than humans. Unfortunately the rest of humanity cannot escape the depravity and tyranny of Europeans even in their own homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sex slavery-the big lie
Posted by: cypriot on Aug 4, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just another ruse by people who want to ban all prostitution. Notice that the author did not suggest legalizing prostitution as a way for police to make sure everyone is a consenting adult. Maloney's rant is very similar to the claim a few years ago that 40,000 sex slaves were going to be imported into Germany for the soccer World Cup. The German police were especially vigilant for sex slaves. How many did they find? None! It was all anti-prostitution BS. Maloney thinks there are 14,500-17,500 slaves brought into the USA each year. If Maloney knows this, why doesn't she tell the police where they are, so they can be freed? If she knows about it, why doesn't the FBI? She is implying there is a hidden criminal power structure in the USA, untouchable by the authorities. This is a common fantasy among conspiracy theorists. Has anyone here ever encountered a sex slave? Considering that prostitutes are always coming into contact with police, we should be hearing about sex slaves being liberated all the time, if there are so many of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex slavery-the big lie Posted by: richholland
» RE: sex slavery-the big lie Posted by: luzmejor
Missing the Point
Posted by: luzmejor on Aug 10, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is about children and probably adults as well, being forced into prostitution. So why do we see so many excuses for this obvious enslavement?

On the other hand, Americans have been finding excuses for enslaving captive populations for centuries.

However, none of the naysayers is speaking from the position of the victims of such forced labor. Do we really want to provide gangsters with an excuse to enslave our citizens so they can become millionaires from selling their bodies?

We don't need any fancy new laws to stop these crimes against people. We already know that this kind of crime always includes kidnap and physical abuse.

Americans are not free from their own nation's laws regardless of where they happen to be. We do have laws of extradition for crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]