web analytics

money

You are currently browsing articles tagged money.

For campaigners like Ashton Kutcher, sex slavery is an easy-to-recognise phenomenon with a single obvious cure, rescue: first by police and then by social workers. And despite rescuers’ avowed respect for personal stories, they never listen to voices that criticise this cure. The poster below was made by migrant sex workers (they call themselves that) in Chiang Mai, Thailand, at the EMPOWER centre. I have posted it before but so many people are still unaware of the problems associated with Rescue that I like to re-run it. See for yourself the reasons workers at Barn Su Funn Brothel gave for denouncing raids and rescue operations intended to liberate them, whether rescuers are police officers, ngo employees or even celebrities and then think twice about how you will Fix Their Lives so easily.

• We lose our savings and our belongings.
• We are locked up.
• We are interrogated by many people.
• They force us to be witnesses.
• We are held until the court case.
• We are held till deportation.
• We are forced re-training.
• We are not given compensation by anybody.
• Our family must borrow money to survive while we wait.
• Our family is in a panic.
• We are anxious for our family.
• Strangers visit our village telling people about us.
• The village and the soldiers cause our family problems.
• Our family has to pay ‘fines’ or bribes to the soldiers.
• We are sent home.
• Military abuses and no work continues at home.
• My family has a debt.
• We must find a way back to Thailand to start again.

The poster brings us close to a situation many people doubt: that poorer migrants selling sex often prefer to continue what they’re doing to being forcibly rescued by people on anti-trafficking crusades. This is not to cast doubt on many helpers’ good intentions or the genuine rescue of some individuals. But it shows how rescue agents haven’t consulted the prostitutes they want to save first, to find out whether they want to be helped and, if they do, what kind of help would actually be helpful. The poster makes it clear that cutting migrant women off from their source of income has drastic consequences for themselves and their families.

This does not mean that they or I deny the existence of abusive practices inflicted during smuggling and trafficking operations. It means that an ideological stance that claims all migrants doing sex work have been victims of such practices is wrong. Check the rescue tag to read more, including stories of sex workers resisting arrest and fleeing from rescuers.

During my years of researching this subject, I have met migrants of myriad nationalities, in many countries, in bars, brothels, shelters, ngo offices, streets, clubs and houses. Some had had bad experiences, some had not recovered from them yet, some were getting on with the next stage of their lives, some enjoyed doing sex work, many had adapted to it as the best option of the moment. For those who want to read more about it, my book Sex at the Margins has lots of details. Here’s another view:

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Migrants who use smugglers to help them travel but can’t pay for services beforehand may borrow and agree to work off the debt however smugglers want. The formal term debt bondage makes this practice sound more drastic than it need be: total unfreedom is not the norm and does not warrant newly fashionable slavery language, which bondage is. Migrants accept that borrowing money is necessary and the loan of money is considered a service provided for a fee. Of course, when smugglers turn abusive, migrants may not know how to get away, and things can get bad. But consider the following description of debt bondage from ‘Through the Looking Glass: Finding and Freeing Modern-Day Slaves at the State Level’ by Michelle L. Rickert.

For example, in Vietnamese nail salons, as recounted by one nail technician who has grown up in the nail business, if a person wants to come over to the United States, she will work with a family member in the United States who will finance the move. Once in the United States, she will live with the family member and pay about three-fourths of her paycheck as payment of the debt. The nail technician recounted this story to explain how Vietnamese nail salon owners help new immigrants out; however, one can see how this situation could easily be abused, and that there is a slippery slope between smuggling and trafficking.[56]

In Pennsylvania, Lynda Dieu Phan recruited A.V. from Vietnam and held her in debt bondage without compensation for over three years.[57] Phan preyed upon the fact that A.V. could not read or write English and coerced her into signing over all of her bank statements and checks.[58] A.V. worked six days a week for eleven hours a day and five hours on Sundays. She was not paid anything except some of the tips that were given to her by customers. Furthermore, she was forced to cook and clean at Phan’s home where she lived. Phan brought over another young woman from Vietnam, and the two girls shared a room, sleeping on the floor.[59] After three years of A.V. working without pay, she had fulfilled her debt. However, Phan did not tell A.V. that she had fulfilled her debt; A.V. did not complain until 2007—seven years later.[60]

56. Interview with Anonymous Nail Technician, in Lynchburg, Va. (Jan. 8, 2010).
57. United States v. Phan, 628 F. Supp. 2d 562 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (deciding a motion concerning the validity of seizing certain documents while searching the house pursuant to a search warrant).58. Id. at 566.
59. Id.
60. Id.

from Liberty University Law Review, Vol. 4: XXX, p 14.

Share

Tags: ,

The amount spent by US government to fight trafficking in 2010: $109 517 783. I realise that may look small compared to some other egregious spending, like military, but then some of us would say there is a distinctly military resemblance in much of the trafficking spending. Note how the money is spread around different agencies, below.

I see that when CdeBaca claimed he had only $25 million to spend (and therefore could not be expected to address root causes of the problem), he was talking about spending in the US only. That was certainly not clear when he said it, in the midst of a rousing description of international interventions. 

Is $109 million a large enough amount to consider spending some of it on other things than catching traffickers, rescuing victims and training police officers? Why not?

Note also that the chart showing what types of trafficking programmes focus on (labour or sex) only shows what they may do – not what they do do. So we don’t know how much of programmes allowed to focus on both labour and sex actually only focus on sex.

Taxpayers: any happier now that you know the details?

PS: I removed the decorative banner at the top of this thing: the cliché of accusing eyes will not be seen on this blog if I can help it.

–Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , ,

After the other day’s question about Ashton Kutcher’s ability to count, I received messages from people who probably had not visited me before. One person lamented that we are all squabbling. The Daily Beast calls it a feud. Both words minimise, or even belittle, the issue at stake – numbers claimed as victims of child sex trafficking in the US. Someone said Can’t we just all work together to rid the world of this scourge? ‘Together’ is the difficult keyword here, since working on a common cause requires a common understanding of just what constitutes the problem.

But a consultant who earns a fee choosing social causes for celebrities to sponsor and then runs their campaigns feels no such scruples, writing emotively There are a few things in life I know in that ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ way. One is that children shouldn’t be sold for sex. Dismissing the idea of getting ‘perfect data’, Maggie Neilson asks Who is supposed to monitor, collect, analyze and disseminate it? Cash-strapped governments? Nonprofit organizations that work their hearts out every day and spend every last penny helping people?

Which sounds lovely and smarmy but misses a couple of key points: 1) Since the US government already plows very large sums into denouncing trafficking and attempting to catch traffickers and to rescue victims, some of the money could be spent on well-run research, in order to make the whole operation more efficient; and 2) Organisations may be ‘non-profit’ but those that run and work in them make salaries, receive employee benefits and enjoy social prestige and the possibility of long careers. They cannot be considered self-sacrificing, and the pennies they are spending don’t come out of their own pockets.

Not to mention that they often don’t help people, whether they spend all their pennies on it or not, which is why I entered this field in the first place long ago and wrote Sex at the Margins and keep up this blog questioning the Rescue Industry.  So I left the following comment on Ms Neilson’s piece (misleadingly titled Setting the Record Straight):

Posted: 7/6/11 by Laura Agustín

If facts don’t matter, if we only guess about the extent of a problem, then we have a good chance of attacking that problem the wrong way. What about the frightened guesses from spies for the US government on those non-existent weapons of mass destruction? How many people have died in that pointless cause?

Helping people in danger is not easy. They don’t all want the same things, or to be saved the same way. That is why a lot of children run away from home in the first place and run away from helping projects, too.

The original estimate said 100,000 to 300,000 children in the US ‘could be at risk’. Everything about the statement is so vague as to be meaningles­s. If you want to Do Something about the risk, then you have to get better informatio­n about exactly which people are at risk and how. And you have to be very careful not to undertake actions that smash up the lives of a lot of people that don’t need the help you are offering – collateral damage, if you will.

Referring to critical thinking as ‘inaction’­, as Neilson does, is a cheap shot. Some of us work hard to get closer to the truth and base ‘helping’ projects on that: it is not inaction, it is not a lack of caring, and I object to its being called that by someone making a good living from the ‘actions’ of clueless crusades.

Do you suppose these writers read the comments people bother to make? I doubt it, but I read mine, and was gratified the other day to receive this one from an anti-trafficking activist:

I like your writing. It is interesting and I think you are after the truth, not whatever will support your point of view. I admire that. nikki junker

–Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Recently I wrote about a man-licking-women video that supposedly depicts a man who does sex for money and feels oppressed by the job. The only sex we are shown, though, is oral, with the man kneeling on a floor between the outspread knees of women on their backs on a bed. The video, part of a campaign by the non-democratic European Women’s Lobby, has provoked interesting comments on my blog, not least from men who say the video’s message is not easy to grasp.

It seems the actual subtext of the video is that older and fat woman are disgusting and undeserving of sexual pleasure. matt

He seems more bored than disgusted. Alex

What the creator of this video did not realize was that clients love to lick women including the mature providers. Pohaku

It is a big boost for a man’s ego if so many women want to have sex with him, even if they are older women. Kris

The depiction of women who are older or a little bit curvy as disgusting? Talk about misogynistic. Erik

Oh, please. A job described as Help Wanted: male to lick anonymous pussies for $xx per hour, supply your own toothpaste and kneepads would have applicants lined up out the door. There would be plenty of candidates if it was a volunteer gig. ewaffle

Okay, bizarre choice of ad. That turned me on. Randy

These are just extracts; go to the comments directly if you are interested. The point is, the video itself, as opposed to the propaganda surrounding it, is open to a myriad of interpretations – some of them quite the opposite of what the EWL intended. Which is good.

The European sex worker rights movement objects to the characterisation of their lives in this way, of course, calling it anti-sex, woman-hating, sexist, discriminatory. But even more importantly, everyone asks how a campaign can be called Together for a Europe Free From Prostitution when several EU member states permit some sorts of sex work and prostitution (see this example from Italy’s Comitato per il Diritti Civili delle Prostitute). The issue is that the EWL receives public money – your taxes – from an EU programme called Progress, established to support financially the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in employment, social affairs and equal opportunities. I first questioned this use of public funds in April, so I am glad to see that the following question was submitted to the European Parliament on 1 July (note the EU’s executive body is called the European Commission):

Can the Commission explain if EU funds have been used directly or indirectly to finance an abolitionist “Campaign to put an end to prostitution in Europe” and “Together for a Europe Free from Prostitution”, promoting a “Europe free from prostitution” and calling on “individuals, national governments and the European Union to take concrete actions”, substantially on the basis of the Swedish model of legislation on the issue and with the aim of abolishing prostitution, which is presented as a form of violence against women? Have notably Progress funds been used for this? If so, can it explain how EU funds can be used to promote a certain legislative model, notably on a matter where Member States have different policies and sensitivities on the matter? If EU funds have been directly or indirectly used, if a campaign is launched to legalize prostitution and sex work or to promote a different legislative model, would the same EU funds be eligible for it? If not, why? Will the Commission request that EU funds are given back, if the campaign is funded without the Commission knowledge?

I edited a couple of words to make the English more understandable to an international audience; see the original form submitted at the bottom of this entry.

The current commissioner for Home Affairs is Cecilia Malmström (Swedish), and although she has not said anything publicly so far about the EWL campaign, she is getting close with recent pronouncements on sexual exploitation of children and modern slavery (where she mentions someone who was forced to have sex with 65-70 men a day, every day during five years, just as though it was the most typical story). I will keep my eye on her, both as an anthropologist of Europe and an anthropologist of Bureaucracy. Speaking of which, here is the original form submitted to parliament.


–Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , , , ,

There must be a sociological principle to describe the tendency for a wide variety of phenomena to be subsumed into a single reductionist label. Start a conversation about trafficking nowadays and ensuing comments will relate to rape, sex tourism, child abuse, organ sales, surrogate motherhood, egg donation and prostitution. At the Battle of Ideas, someone brought up ethnic cleansing, too: Everything becomes trafficking.

Marriages between older white men and younger less-white women, or richer men and poorer women, have long been condemned as trafficking, although research abounds on how the businesses work, even before the Internet made websites possible. The condemnation of this sort of relationship rests on the belief that there is a universal right way to meet and become a couple that is violated here, and the history of humankind, in which matchmaking may be an even older profession than selling sex, is forgotten. As is the fact that all marriages are financial arrangements. A lot of critics must also be forgetting that some of their own ancestors’ marriages were arranged by intermediaries, and sometimes brides travelled to another country to marry men they had not met before. The following report from a financial publication focuses on the male point of view about the prices involved, and there is no doubt that comments are sexist and women’s points of view lacking. Does it make sense for someone from NOW to call it all trafficking, however?

The Mail-Order-Bride Trade Is Flourishing

Teddy Wayne, Bloomberg Business Week, 6 January 2011

Times are good for Joseph Weiner. The former investment banker and Wharton [Bachelor of Science in Economics] lives with his wife of 27 years in a three-bedroom London townhouse. When he isn’t lounging in his private garden, Weiner spends his free time playing tennis at the exclusive Hurlingham Club and gliding around town in his Lexus. Though he doesn’t claim to be a philosopher, Weiner’s insight into the human heart has led to a lucrative second career as a matchmaker and packager of amorous adventures. “Every guy wants a beautiful younger woman,” he explains. “It’s the nature of us.”

Fourteen years ago, Weiner, 73, founded Hand-In-Hand, a London-based matchmaking agency that charges male customers up to $2,000 for a “supervised courtship”—a process that matches them with younger Eastern European women. Hand-In-Hand has since grown into a multinational operation with 30 satellite offices from the U.S. to Abu Dhabi. “We’re still opening up franchises, and business is booming,” says Weiner in his thick New York accent. “Financial problems are the biggest cause of divorce. There are more financial problems now. There are more people available!

In the age of globalization, the international matchmaking industry—still known in many circles as the mail-order bride trade—is thriving like never before. The Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit organization in Falls Church, Va., that protects immigrant women, estimates that the number of mail-order marriages in the U.S. more than doubled between 1999 and 2007, when up to 16,500 such unions were sealed.

International matchmakers are now a growing segment of the U.S. online dating industry, which, according to market research firm IBISWorld, racked up more than $2 billion in 2010 revenue. Since the recession began, “we’ve seen more men sign up,” says John Adams, the co-founder of Phoenix-based A Foreign Affair, which charges $4,000 for the right to attend champagne-soaked “socials” in various Eastern European cities. The company estimates it sparked nearly 1,000 engagements this year. “Men evaluate their lives a little more closely when the economy becomes more difficult. They look at what’s really important to them and try to find that one person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.” Adams would know. He met his wife, Tanya, at a 1997 St. Petersburg social sponsored by his own company.

Amid the proliferation of dating websites and matchmaking reality shows, venturing abroad for love has taken on a more acceptable mien. International matchmakers have succeeded, in part, by targeting middle-aged men who find dating troublesome—men who, according to Weiner, “don’t have the money to go out on dates and go on weekends to Vegas and Atlantic City. They want someone to take care of them.” While they might not have the means to secure a more conveniently located trophy wife, they must have enough money to travel to Eastern Europe and spend thousands for a shot at eternal bliss. Though love may be priceless, notes Weiner, “$2,000 to get a beautiful woman—it’s a bargain!” According to David L. Knabel, the owner and president of Louisville-based matchmaker A Volga Girl, “It’s no different than a dating site in the U.S.—except it’s international marriage.”

In 2007, Ben Baligad hit a dry spell. The divorced 53-year-old eschewed the San Diego dating scene after discovering Ukraine’s favorable gender ratio—0.92 males for every female between ages 15 and 64, according to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. After enlisting companies such as Global Ladies and Army of Brides, the insurance salesman made three trips to Ukraine. The third time was the charm: Baligad met his potential future wife, Natalya Chuprina, 18 years his junior. “I’m planning on bringing her to the U.S. as soon as I get my finances straight,” he says.

By pulling on the heartstrings of single men, the mail-order bride industry has at its disposal untold financial opportunities. In addition to membership fees—which run $29.95 per month at A Foreign Affair—and “romance tours” that can cost suitors thousands, many sites charge between $6 and $8 to translate each e-mail exchanged between interlocutors, and even more for phone and instant message translation. Some companies, like Hand-In-Hand, have also expanded into same-sex international matchmaking. “We’ve been doing gay business for about a year and a half,” boasts Weiner.

Though every site claims to police its users, scams are common. Les Vancil, the founder of Easy Ukraine, an Ohio-based site targeting men traveling abroad for matchmaking opportunities, says the problems lie with the Eastern European agencies contracted to recruit women. Vancil asserts these companies post fake profiles, ratchet up prices for translation, and sometimes impersonate women to ask for money.

When customers complain, matchmakers “wipe their hands clean,” says Steve Ewald, a Detroit accountant who stopped using such sites after several unsatisfying experiences. They blame the agencies, he claims, who blame the women. Ben Baligad says the agency that helped him communicate with his girlfriend skimmed 10 percent off the money he sent her for train fare and phone bills. He also suspects it posed as her in e-mails demanding he pay for a pricey apartment rental for his visit. He hasn’t brought it up with his girlfriend, though. “I think she thinks I will get angry,” he says.

The arrangement can be far worse for the women involved. After a few highly publicized murders of women brought to America through international matchmakers, the U.S. passed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA). The statute requires background checks on U.S. citizens before communication via the matchmakers. Those who fail to comply cannot obtain a Form I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e).

However, couples can get around this obstacle by claiming they met through other avenues. There also tends to be little enforcement of IMBRA when the agencies are based outside the U.S. (Hand-In-Hand, for example, is registered in St. Kitts.) “The mail-order bride industry is a softer version of human trafficking,” says Sonia Ossorio, executive director of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women. Ossorio also acknowledges that some relationships work out—but perhaps not in a way that would please Betty Friedan. “A lot of people who are attracted to it are just looking for a woman who’s docile and obedient,” she says.

For some companies, such submissiveness is a selling point. Hand-In-Hand’s website trumpets the fact that its females are “unspoiled by feminism.” Company founder Weiner argues this form of chauvinism—like the mail-order bride business itself—is economically motivated. “You take a beautiful woman from the Czech Republic and you bring her into your home, she does all your cooking and cleaning and ironing,” he says. “At the end of the day, the service is free.” Hand-In-Hand estimates the potential savings of a homemaking wife at $150 per week.

Women from economically troubled regions also take part in order to secure an American visa. “People around the world still view the U.S. as a highly favorable place to live,” says A Foreign Affair’s Adams. His wife agrees. “I worked a lot before, but then I was waking up at nine in the morning and was like, ‘Whoa, what do I have to do now?’ ” says Tanya Adams, who remains a supporter of the company. “I even recommended it to my niece.”

Perhaps love can always find a way. Most sites claim a 75 percent or greater success rate, and this boundless quest for passion—one inflamed by hard times—continues to benefit matchmaking entrepreneurs. “Wonderful times for me,” Weiner says. “I can’t complain.”

Share

Tags: , ,

At the time of the World Cup, a reporter asked me, a bit nervously, about the possibility that white football-fan tourists in South Africa might have plans or desire to have sex with black people. I think it’s quite possible, I replied. Silence. Is there anything wrong with that, do you mean? His continuing silence confirmed that yes, that was what he meant.

No, I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with that, I think everyone desires others for something we see or imagine we see in others, which can be their eyes, voice, hair, style, breasts, chest hair, skin colour and many other attributes. We may be imagining things behind this superficial trait, of course. We may imagine they are wilder or more interesting than people we usually meet, or that they are better at sex, or that we are safer with them or that it will be easier to tell them what we like. But whether our partners look like us or different, we are doing that imagining and desiring. I wrote about this for American Sexuality a few years ago.

Does this change completely because there is a money transaction between the partners? Why should it? If you say it does then you grant money a determining status you probably don’t grant it in any other sphere. I know the argument about control and domination backwards and forwards, the one that says that the person who pays has the power to command. I would put it differently: the person who pays has the power to say I want x and will pay for it and if you accept the money I expect you to do it. A notion that the ‘power relation’ will always be skewed towards the white person is too simplistic for me, both too racially oriented and too fetishising of money.

The idea that a richer person will always have more power than a poorer one grants money a singular status I refuse to give it. The idea that money trumps every other type of power crushes the idea of human agency, the space to negotiate other sorts of power. Of course I understand the critique of exoticisation. I understand Frantz Fanon and don’t doubt that poor colonies were in some sense the ‘brothels of Europe’. But such an analysis comes from today, from contemporary perspectives on imperialism and colonisation, and they omit to understand what particular people were doing within their own cultural logics at the time. Every instance of a lighter or richer person wanting to be with a darker or poorer one does not have the same meaning.

I wrote about prices and ethnicities in the sex industry here some time ago.

– Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , , ,

Young people selling sex or its illusions resist victimisation by a typically tut-tutting reporter who not only asks them the facts but also tries to get them to feel bad about their jobs. Someone should make a compilation of just the reporters’ side of these conversations, with their disapproving expressions and head-shaking as they reveal that money matters to people (golly, do they really think most people get to have such neat jobs as theirs??) while at the same time other things than money matter, too. The kids win the show hands down, even though the reporter gives the impression that he Knows Better (latest nomination for Rescue Industry reporter of the month). See the site for two videos, both involving girls, that I cannot copy. In one of them, the escort admits someone once pinned her down and she didn’t like it. Horror from the reporter: That’s rape! (trying to get her to cry on camera, was he?) The escort says I am okay now. Reporter reiterates his personal shock at what she’s said. Feh, I hate this stuff!

Ben and Alex
‘Butlers in the buff’ Ben and Alex are in for the money
My body makes money

10 December 2010, BBC Radio Two

My journey starts in Bristol with students Ben and Alex, both 21 who say their Saturday job is “cheekier” than most. It’s a dream job. We get paid to go to parties, says Ben. We head to a party where the boys have been booked for a few hours. They make their big entrance wearing nothing but a tiny apron, bow tie, and cuffs. They’re butlers in the buff. In my first year I worked in a bar, in order to earn 50 quid, I’d have to work 10 hours. Now I can do that in two hours at the weekend, says Alex. The boys say they love the attention, but admit it’s all about the money.

Topless on TV

Next, I go to meet twins Preeti and Priya, who work for Babestation – one of the UK’s biggest adult TV channels. The girls take calls from viewers while they are topless and say it’s their choice of career. We both left school with good grades. We had a lot of possibilities open to us, says Preeti. They say job satisfaction is the main reason they chose to work in the sex industry over other careers but admit there’s a potential to earn a lot of money. If you work hard you could be earning up to a hundred grand a year. But don’t think, ‘I’ve never done this job before and I’ll walk in and they’ll say that’s your salary’, it doesn’t work like that.

Someone who has used her body to become rich and famous is glamour model Keeley Hazell. However, she says going topless isn’t always the best way to achieve her kind of success. I was lucky to be in that 1% of people that get that, and become really successful. Keeley believes people who want to go into glamour should ask themselves why: If it’s for money, then I’d probably play the lottery.

‘Not prostitution’

I end my journey by meeting a former teenage escort who worked under the name ‘Hannah’.  Aged 18, she was preparing to go to university and owed her family and friends £4,000. A friend suggested escorting as a quick solution to her debt. An overnight stay would cost £800, she says. Hannah doesn’t consider what she did as prostitution because she didn’t stand on street corners. Although she misses the money, she stopped because she became obssessed about catching STIs and couldn’t cope with the nightmares she was having. I don’t feel like I degraded myself in the sense of my naked body being plastered up on a billboard saying, ‘Call this number for good times. But I did degrade myself in that my body was no longer just for people who loved me.

– Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , , ,

While so many people are upset about the idea of commercial sex or the sex industry or prostitution, other forms of sex-money exchanges largely escape condemnation. I am interested in where people draw the line between commercial and non-commercial sex in specific contexts, such as transactional sex amongst fish-sellers and the famous sign asking Are you a prostitute? in Shanghai.

Prostitution, Gold-digging, or Just a Dinner Date? How Chimps Get Paid for Sex, at Psychology Today

Women in particular look forward to having a meal at a nice restaurant. Typically, though not always, the male of the species will pay the bill, which he may gladly do in the hope of currying favor with the female. Rarely, if ever, do couples on dinner dates appreciate the evolutionary psychology behind this ubiquitous activity. Taking a step back, it is clear that eating is simply a biological function and sharing food together need not intrinsically be romantic, and yet dinner is often associated with romance. Why?

Money Dating, at seeking arrangement.com

Money singles take an ultra pragmatic approach to the online dating game. Most money daters are interested in setting up mutually beneficial relationships, with clearly defined ground rules. In fact, many money daters decide the desired length of their relationship before it begins.

  • Sugar Daddy: A wealthy, usually older man who gives expensive gifts to a young person in return for intimacy or companionship.
  • Sugar Mommy: A wealthy, usually older woman who gives expensive gifts to a young person in return for intimacy or companionship.
  • Sugar Baby: A young person who gives intimacy or companionship to an older man or woman in exchange for expensive gifts.

Top 4 Most Beneficial Sugar Daddy Arrangements, by Andrea Rodgers

Mentorship . . . The value of making connections and learning from first-hand experience can be worth more than gold to women looking for professional advancement… “give a girl a fish and you have fed her for a day, teach her how to fish and you have fed her for a lifetime.”

Arm Candy . . . Many sugar daddies simply enjoy the pleasure of spoiling a woman, especially gorgeous, young and appreciative ones. This sugar daddy takes his. . .

Girls sell sex in Hong Kong to earn shopping money, at CNN.com/asia

‘We skipped the dinner part and went straight to the guest house for sex. Actually, I was a bit scared, but I knew this was the only way I could get money. This customer wasn’t bad, though. We just had sex, he paid, and then he left’. . . a growing social phenomenon among teens in Hong Kong called compensated dating, a practice in which a young woman agrees to go on a date with a man for a fee. More often than not, the date involves sex.

Earlier blog posts on compensated or subsidised dating at Japan’s enjo kosai and Poland’s piggies and mall girls.

– Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags:

Teenager said to be vulnerable sitting on a bench

Press Release, 8 November 2010: Over the past 72 hours, the FBI, its local and state law enforcement partners, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children concluded Operation Cross Country V, a three-day national enforcement action as part of the Innocence Lost National Initiative. The operation included enforcement actions in 40 cities across 34 FBI divisions around the country and led to the recovery of 69 children who were being victimized through prostitution. Additionally, nearly 885 others, including 99 pimps, were arrested on state and local charges.

There is a very long history of alarms about children and their sexual activities, and numerous researchers have had insightful things to say about the contemporary fear of childrenandsex, which is not my area of specialisation. But.

It turns out that the US-government-funded Federal Bureau of Investigation has a human-trafficking programme. Well, they would, of course, and, in fact, given the framework of catching perpetrators of border-crossing crimes they make more sense as criminal-hunters than local or state police.

We’re working hard to stop human trafficking—not only because of the personal and psychological toll it takes on society, but also because it facilitates the illegal movement of immigrants across borders and provides a ready source of income for organized crime groups and even terrorists.

I actually prefer this sort of clarity to the hypocrisy of so many Rescue Industry projects: Here, we know where we are. According to the general description, sex-related trafficking is not the FBI’s only interest. But they have a sub-project on ‘missing children’ called Innocence Lost, where the sex link is overt, their achievements since 2003 described as working

to rescue more than 1,200 children. Investigations have successfully led to the conviction of over 600 pimps, madams, and their associates who exploit children through prostitution. These convictions have resulted in lengthy sentences, including multiple 25-year-to-life sentences and the seizure of real property, vehicles, and monetary assets.

I find that last line disturbing – bragging about how long the sentences are as well as the stuff taken from those involved, but those are the kind of indicators police use to show they are doing something – rescue being, after all, a pretty vague concept (and they know it).

But Innocence Lost turns out to be more than an FBI project; it is a National Initiative (this link takes you to a site on Missing and Exploited Children), composed of no fewer than

37 dedicated task forces and working groups throughout the United States involving federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies working in tandem with U.S. Attorney’s Offices.

Their fear is the growing problem of domestic child sex slavery in the form of child prostitution in the United States.

I would like to see evidence that the number of children taking money for sex is growing, since research has for a long time addressed young people who leave home and then survive by selling sex. Calling it child sex slavery is exciting, but the issue is the same. Leaving home is not always a bad thing, anyway.

But the question has to be: The 37 dedicated task forces and working groups get $26.1 million to do this work. If they have rescued 1200 children since 2003, each rescued child costs more than $20 000.

IF there is an immense and growing number of enslaved children worth investing huge amounts of money in, then some effort should be made to figure out how to find and save more of them. What is the money being spent on?

NCMEC has trained more than 1,000 members of law enforcement on the issue of child victims of prostitution. These specialized courses, developed and conducted in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have trained multi-disciplinary teams, with membership drawn from state, local, and federal law-enforcement agencies and local social-service providers from cities all over the country.

All that training and so few children rescued?

– Laura Agustín, the Naked Anthropologist

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »