Sex slavery remains a genuine problem: some human traffickers use force or fraud to compel women into becoming prostitutes. This is a tragedy and the public outcry and demand for action is entirely reasonable.
Unfortunately, authorities often define sex slavery rather widely, with the distinction between involuntary “human trafficking” and voluntary “people smuggling” routinely ignored in practice. This means that efforts such as the UK’s Operation Pentameter – which “aims to rescue and protect victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation and to identify, disrupt, arrest and bring to justice those involved in criminal activity,” and pursues this goal by raiding brothels – often end up imprisoning voluntary migrants rather than liberating slaves.
Now, More4 news has revealed that two-thirds of the women rescued by Operation Pentameter refused help and have since “disappeared,” presumably to return to their jobs.
Proponents of the Operation are quick to suggest that women refuse help for fear of reprisal from their criminal masters. While this may be true in some cases, when we consider the fact that the victims were already in police custody, it seems likely that most refused help because they were voluntarily engaging in sex work. For many poor women, prostitution is the least bad option available. Others don’t have hang-ups about sex and may even (gasp!) enjoy their jobs. Moving to greener pastures to make a better life is an entirely sensible and unobjectionable thing to do. Why should this be any different for prostitutes?
These voluntary migrants are, of course, committing the victimless crimes of illegal immigration and (where illegal) prostitution. While prohibition of victimless crimes is bad enough, attempting to justify that prohibition with the well-being of the perpetrator is disingenuous in the extreme. Regardless of the spin you put on it, rescuing someone who would prefer to be left alone is kidnapping.
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
I’ve had this discussion with people many times… Typically we are talking about whether, or not, selling oneself into slavery would be permitted in a hypothetical anarchist society.
My stance is that slavery is not voluntary.
This isn’t really about that sort of voluntary slavery. My title choice was poor.
“My stance is that slavery is not voluntary.”
So what is your take on the conditions outlined above?
My stance is that people who choose to be sex toys are not sex slaves. Just as someone who chooses to participate in S&M is not being tortured.
Brilliant article.
I think the word “presumably” in the third paragraph represents a huge assumption. Even if they are already in police custody many people in that situation have a poor grasp of the language, are afraid of being deported and afraid of reprisals.
I have absolutely no doubt this is true. I think the idea that women can and do willfully engage in the sex trade is largely ignored due to feminist mantras that simplistically portray women as the innocent victims of evil, mean men.
Of course there are some well-publicized examples of women who got into the business voluntarily – who “went public” as prostitutes or escorts (there was one who wrote for a column for Penthouse for quite some time, I think). But I will be honest enough to say I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve visited a few brothels in Europe (notably Amsterdam) and topless or nude bars in the US. I’ve even had the services of an escort in the US (more than one time with the same girl). Of course a certain percentage of the girls were at best ambivalent about whatever they were doing…I would say 30% or so. Of the remaining 70%, they were either pleasantly engaged – or for a certain, surprisingly high number, they were clearly enjoying themselves.
I think the reality is quite simple: Men and women are well-suited for one another (no great surprise there) and that women are inclined to provide what men want (and vice-versa). For many women – unskilled, or not overly intelligent, or lacking an easy means to improve their lot financially (or to move to a better country due to some other marketable skills) using their bodies is a simple, frankly natural, and often (at least initially) lucrative means for addressing their needs. And as a side benefit, many of them enjoy the attention and physical pleasure (at least from men who are reasonably good-looking and hygienic).
Wow. Im amazed at the amount of willful ignorance on here. I have NO DOUBT that most prostitutes are completely voluntary works, and perhaps a *small* percentage of sex “slaves” are voluntary workers. However, the basic premise of this article is based on the totally incorrect assumption that because people who are rescued from slavery often go back to work, they must be voluntary workers. A primary way that women are held in slavery is through extortion – traffickers know where their families live and threaten their lives constantly. Most of these women return out of fear they their loved ones will be hurt or extorted themselves, which the authorities who rescued them have no way to prevent.
i know everyone loves to 1) doubt the official story on things 2) think that all prostitutes are there voluntarily – but try using a little more evidence before you make claims like this.
The author said “consider the fact that the victims were already in police custody, it seems likely that most refused help because they were voluntarily engaging in sex work.”
If you have some compelling evidence that he is off base on this then I’d like to encourage you to present it.
The compelling evidence is that extortion of this kind is a well-documented tactic used in trafficking. I also didnt write the article, if one wants to make the argument that a large portion of people referred to as sex “slaves” are actually voluntary workers, I think they should actually engage with all the ways traffickers are known to keep slaves in check, not just assume that because they refused help, they were voluntary workers. For people skeptical of the state, Im amazed at how much faith you have in the authorities to ‘protect’ these people.
My point is not that I think sex slave raids are a neccessary or useful thing, or that sex work should be equated with sex slavery in any way. I am more concerned with anti-statists dismissing something which is often truly and horrifyingly coercive as ‘voluntary’. This glosses over the more important issues of, how the illegality of prostitution and immigration lead to this kind of slavery in the first place, and how anti-statists might approach problems like this through voluntary action – ie how do you educate consumers as to how to try to distinguish between a voluntary sex worker and a sex slave.
There are any number of reasons why someone in police custody might refuse help. A battered wife for example, may refuse help because she is too afraid of her husband or afraid he could hurt her children.
FWIW The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, in this case the claim is:
-A large number of people were in police custody as “sex slaves”
-Many of them refused to cooperate with authorities
THEREFORE they must not be “sex slaves” at all. That’s a huge leap and if there’s any evidence it would need to come in there.
Aren’t proponents of Operation Pentameter the ones making the claim that these women are forced to work involuntarily?
I think the word “presumably” in the third paragraph represents a huge assumption. Even if they are already in police custody many people in that situation have a poor grasp of the language, are afraid of being deported and afraid of reprisals.