Talk:Human trafficking

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Customers can be traffickers too[edit]

I think it's important to point out that there doesn't need to be a boss or middleman in order for acts to be deemed "human trafficking." For example, a 17-year-old prostitute can sell her services to a guy (without any pimp being involved) and the guy can still be prosecuted for human trafficking, even though she was above the age of consent. I don't know if the offense is explicitly called "human trafficking" in the statutes, but these legislative changes were made as part of the push to combat human trafficking. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs rework[edit]

  • This article probably needs a rework. It almost single-mindedly against the idea that sexual trafficking is a major problem. It doesn't even list how sex trafficking impacts victims! Also, this article was started by, ahem, Men's Right's Activist EXTREMIST (capitalization not my own), who pretty much defined the tone of the article as being "not a big deal yo". Specific claims that I believe are unsourced and warrantless are "Prostitution is increasingly being relabeled "sex trafficking", regardless of whether or not force, fraud, or coercion (denial of agency) are involved. Lurid tales of foreign women (mostly from Eastern Europe) being abducted or deceived to serve as prostitutes against their will during the 1990s led to passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which offers amnesty and T-1 visas to foreign women in exchange for co-operation with investigations of international prostitution rings. Despite the ghastly estimates of the numbers of women crossing international borders as prostitutes against their will, there have been very few takers for T-1 visas", which is completely unsourced. A look at TVPA's history ( suggests sex trafficking was not even well-defined in America legally before the act was passed, and was almost unprosecuted, which contradicts the idea that sex trafficking was somehow expanded to include something previously defined as something else; sex trafficking was undefined! The statement "The failure to confirm large amounts of international trafficking (defined as denial of agency) for prostitution coupled with the profiles of traffickers that have been confirmed through criminal investigation suggests that the broad-brush approach to promoting the issue of sex trafficking is a moral panic that disregards actual circumstances." is equally warrantless. What is a large amount? I — and RW — (rightly) condemn lynching and support lynching as a federal crime (, but let's be honest, how many people have been lynced since 1980? Does this count as a "large amount", or are we going through a "moral" panic? Also, statistics on human trafficking can be found in this helpful, source-full wikipedia blurb:
  • "The article published in 2019,“Combating Child Sex Trafficking in the United States,” by Brooke Axtell, includes statics stating “83% of sex trafficking victims in the United Stated are US citizens.”[37] A study was held by the University of Texas that found that, “approximately 79,000 children have been placed in this field, just in Texas alone.”[37] In the article, “Sex Trafficking” on, it states" From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline, operated by Polaris, has received reports of 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside the United States. In 2017, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimated that 1 in 7 endangered runaways reported to them were likely sex trafficking victims. The International Labor Organization estimates that there are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation globally."[38] The article “Human Trafficking in America Among Worst in World Report” by Andrew Keiper includes ​“​The Department of Justice provided more than $31 million for 45 victim service providers that offered services to trafficking survivors across the country. It was a demonstrable increase; the DOJ only provided $16 million to 18 organizations in 2017, according to the report.”[39] In March 2019, the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, published a report that they'd identified 1,032 victims between 2014 and 2016 and another 4,209 individuals at risk of being trafficked during the same.[40]" Clearly sex trafficking, even if you take away all the voluntary cases, still exists in a "large amount".
  • With all this being said, it is my opinion — and my action — to delete the two previously mentioned, unsourced and unwarranted assertions. It is also my action to add statements showing the long-term negative impacts of sex trafficking as well as its continued presence. If anyone wants to revert it, tell me whyThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do check this eventually. I'd like to know that my comments here stand. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The article by Axtell is basically an opinion piece, and Axtell is not a journalist or a researcher, so its quality is not too high. A significant problem with sex trafficking statistics and whether one considers it a major problem or not is definitional because the public view of what it is often differs from the legal definition. This is what I wrote on the QAnon page:
The reality of sex trafficking is rather different than QAnon proponents would like to have one believe. While it's true that coercive child sex trafficking exists, it is quite rare.[1] First, the the legal definition of trafficking is rather different than most people think: it includes situations in which an underage teen has sex with a john in exchange for money, food, drugs, or shelter, even without a pimp being involved, the john is considered the trafficker;[2] this is known as 'survival sex'.Wikipedia Second, most of the survival sex involving children is because "the child is homeless, has run away from foster care or has been kicked out by their parents, often due to being queer or transgender. Many of these kids end up trading sex for money, drugs or a place to sleep because it’s their only way to survive."[3] The problem for these homeless teens is often that foster care and other support systems that could keep them off the streets and out of prostitution are often chronically underfunded.[4] So, the situation then is that deeply conservative parents form a pool of people who are likely to reject their LGBTQ or nonconforming kids, who hate taxes and funding social services, and who form a base for QAnon recruitment. This amounts to a form of psychological projection wherein QAnon supporters baseelessly accuse liberals of the most wildly reprehensive actions for which conservatives are in reality at least partly responsible.
Bongolian (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem admitting that's all true. It's not hard to realize that the public is often out of touch with reality... although I suspect we have different reasons for that though :). Anyway, even if that is all valid and true — which I assume it is — hammering in "Child sex trafficking bad" both protects RW from being misconstrued, and helps sentimental souls like me sleep at night. If you know cons say "atheists are pedos", and you think "that's unfair, pedos bad", then it'd be a good idea to make clear, well, "pedos SUCK super DUPER MUCH". Also, no matter what social forces drives children to such sad, depressing, morally horrific states, that does not change the fact that in child trafficking, there is a direct criminal/psychopath/kiddy-molestor/hopefully-one-day-gallows-hanger, and a direct victim. The debate on child trafficking can certainly include social forces, but the crime and victims itself, irregardless of their identity or background, should be highlighted primarily.
Last thing, there are plenty of real pedo busts, even if they are not as movie-like as the headlines would suggest. and are all good places to see real child and sex trafficking in action, and cheer for the criminal's punishment in real time. Even if, somehow (and I am 99.999% sure this a false statement) 50% of the total cases there, in these specifically anti-trafficking websites, are whack, there's still 50% too many.
Just realized I'm not logged in. Oh bother (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Also I just realized Axtell was my source. Oh great. Thought u were supporting me. Never mind. Regardless, there are like 3 other sources in that wikipedia article alone, and I don't think any of them are even used in the new article proper. So I think I'm still fine with my assertions :) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 17:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)