Argentina Considers Bills That Could Criminalize Sex Trafficking—But Also Buying Sex
Is it ever helpful, in policy terms, to lump together trafficking and sexual exploitation with the buying and selling of sexual services between consenting adults? This is the question in Argentina right now.
As I arrived in Buenos Aires this week, the Argentine Congress started discussing two bills purporting to deal with human trafficking. According to reports, one bill seeks to establish prison sentences for individuals who buy sex from victims of trafficking, while the other seeks to penalize anyone who buys sex at all, regardless of whether the person providing the sex is a consenting adult. (The government is not suggesting legislation to criminalize sex workers themselves.) No one would contest that actual sex trafficking is a problem in Argentina and that something should be done about it. The question is if it is ever helpful, in policy terms, to lump together trafficking and sexual exploitation with the buying and selling of sexual services between consenting adults.
The push to eradicate trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation is a legitimate goal for any government—in fact, it is an obligation. In Argentina, this objective has gained particular urgency in the wake of a decade-long, largely unsuccessful legal investigation into the abduction and forced prostitution of a young woman. In relation to that case, Amnesty International and other groups have criticized the lack of effective protection in Argentina against gender-based violence in general and trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation in particular.
But the evidence suggests that Argentina’s latest approach to address the problem may not be the best one. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has carried out studies and generated guidance on anti-trafficking initiatives. The organization has come to the conclusion that brothel raids and “rescues” that treat all sex workers as victims of violence contribute to decreased safety for sex workers by forcing many of them to move constantly from one place to another, undermining the social networks that can help to keep sex workers safe.
UNAIDS suggests that governments should instead take a nuanced approach that on the one hand recognizes the autonomy of individual adult sex workers and clients who act on their own volition, while on the other clamps down hard on sexual exploitation. In this context, sexual exploitation should include not only trafficking into forced prostitution, but also violent acts against voluntary sex workers (such as rape) and the use, offer, or procurement of a child for commercial sex acts.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
The question is, of course, if there is such a thing as voluntary sex work.
In general, people who believe governments should treat trafficking and sex work as one and the same would answer “no” to that question. To this group of advocates, sex work is inherently violent; they believe that the people who say they engage in sex work voluntarily are in reality forced to do so by circumstances or structural disadvantages they may or may not see. The goal for such advocates is to eradicate sex work, rather than trafficking, and the assumption is that the criminal law is an effective tool in advancing this goal.
It is undeniable that sex workers, like everyone else, make decisions about their lives and livelihoods that are at least in part informed by the opportunities available to them. For some sex workers, opportunities are severely limited because they belong to a disadvantaged group in terms of gender, income level, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and many may have chosen a different path given a different context.
It is also undeniable that the notion of exchanging sexual services for money makes many people very uncomfortable. I would venture that most parents would rather not see their children having sex for a living. And it is certainly true that many people would prefer not to see sex workers at all, leading to initiatives to curb street solicitation that often do little to promote sex worker safety.
However, it is not clear why our discomfort with sex for money should lead us to disregard, wholesale, the decisions made by sex workers themselves. When I did research on access to reproductive health services in Argentina, I spoke to women who felt empowered by their sex work, because it was the only relationship in which they felt they had some measure of control. And when I did research on discrimination based on HIV-status in the Dominican Republic, I spoke to women who were mortified that sex work was the only avenue open to them after they were fired from hotel and factory jobs. Both groups of women had made decisions in an imperfect context, but neither group would benefit from brothel raids and the blanket criminalization of their clients. In fact, treating these women as if their choices do not matter is unlikely to empower them to overcome structural abuse.
In Argentina, trafficking into forced prostitution remains a problem. However, not all sex workers are trafficked or remain in commercial sex work against their will. As Argentina’s congress—and many other countries—debate how to deal with both of these issues, they would do well to remember that to be effective a policy approach must be grounded in evidence and supported by those who are meant to benefit from it.
Though the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act has little chance of passing Congress, its inclusive and evidence-based approach is a much-needed antidote to years of publicly funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which may have contributed to troubling declines in youth knowledge about sexual and reproductive health.
Recent research from the Guttmacher Institute finds there have been significant changes in sexuality education during the last decade—and not for the better.
Fewer young people are receiving “formal sex education,” meaning classes that take place in schools, youth centers, churches, or community settings. And parents are not necessarily picking up the slack. This does not surprise sexuality education advocates, who say shrinking resources and restrictive public policies have pushed comprehensive programs—ones that address sexual health and contraception, among other topics—out of the classroom, while continued funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs has allowed uninformative ones to remain.
But just a week before this research was released in April, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act (REHYA). If passed, REHYA would allocate federalfunding for accurate, unbiased sexuality education programs that meet strict content requirements. More importantly, it would lay out a vision of what sexuality education could and should be.
Can this act ensure that more young people get high-quality sexuality education?
In the short term: No. Based on the track record of our current Congress, it has little chance of passing. But in the long run, absolutely.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Less Sexuality Education Today The Guttmacher Institute’s new study compared data from two rounds of a national survey in the years 2006-2010 and 2011-2013. It found that even the least controversial topics in sex education—sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV and AIDS—are taught less today than a few years ago. The proportion of young women taught about STDs declined from 94 percent to 90 percent between the two time periods, and young women taught about HIV and AIDS declined from 89 percent to 86 percent during the same period.
While it may seem like a lot of young people are still learning about these potential consequences of unprotected sex, few are learning how to prevent them. In the 2011-2013 survey, only 50 percent of teen girls and 58 percent of teen boys had received formal instruction about how to use a condom before they turned 18. And the percentage of teens who reported receiving formal education about birth control in general decreased from 70 percent to 60 percent among girls and from 61 percent to 55 percent among boys.
One of the only things that did increase was the percentage of teen girls (from 22 percent to 28 percent) and boys (from 29 to 35 percent) who said they got instruction on “how to say no to sex”—but no corresponding instruction on birth control.
Unfortunately, many parents do not appear to be stepping in to fill the gap left by formal education. The study found that while there’s been a decline in formal education, there has been little change in the number of kids who say they’ve spoken to their parents about birth control.
Debra Hauser, president of Advocates for Youth, told Rewire that this can lead to a dangerous situation: “In the face of declining formal education and little discussion from their parents, young people are left to fend for themselves, often turning to their friends or the internet-either of which can be fraught with trouble.”
The study makes it very clear that we are leaving young people unprepared to make responsible decisions about sex. When they do receive education, it isn’t always timely: It found that in 2011-2013, 43 percent of teen females and 57 percent of teen males did not receive information about birth control before they had sex for the first time.
It could be tempting to argue that the situation is not actually dire because teen pregnancy rates are at a historic low, potentially suggesting that young people can make do without formal sex education or even parental advice. Such an argument would be a mistake. Teen pregnancy rates are dropping for a variety of reasons, but mostly because because teens are using contraception more frequently and more effectively. And while that is great news, it is insufficient.
Our goals in providing sex education have to go farther than getting young people to their 18th or 21st birthday without a pregnancy. We should be working to ensure that young people grow up to be sexually healthy adults who have safe and satisfying relationships for their whole lives.
But for anyone who needs an alarming statistic to prove that comprehensive sex education is still necessary, here’s one: Adolescents make up just one quarter of the population, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate they account for more than half of the 20 million new sexually transmittedinfections (STIs) that occur each year in this country.
The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act The best news about the REHYA is that it takes a very broad approach to sexuality education, provides a noble vision of what young people should learn, and seems to understand that changes should take place not just in K-12 education but through professional development opportunities as well.
As Advocates for Youth explains, if passed, REHYA would be the first federal legislation to ever recognize young people’s right to sexual health information. It would allocate funding for education that includes a wide range of topics, including communication and decision-making skills; safe and healthy relationships; and preventing unintended pregnancy, HIV, other STIs, dating violence, sexual assault, bullying, and harassment.
In addition, it would require all funded programs to be inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students and to meet the needs of young people who are sexually active as well as those who are not. The grants could also be used for adolescents and young adults in institutes of higher education. Finally, the bill recognizes the importance of teacher training and provides resources to prepare sex education instructors.
If we look at the federal government’s role as leading by example, then REHYA is a great start. It sets forth a plan, starts a conversation, and moves us away from decades of focusing on disproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In fact, one of the fun parts of this new bill is that it diverts funding from the Title V program, which received $75 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2016. That funding has supported programs that stick to a strict eight-point definition of “abstinence education” (often called the “A-H definition”) that, among other things, tells young people that sex outside of marriage is against societal norms and likely to have harmful physical and psychological effects.
The federal government does not make rules on what can and cannot be taught in classrooms outside of those programs it funds. Broad decisions about topics are made by each state, while more granular decisions—such as what curriculum to use or videos to show—are made by local school districts. But the growth of the abstinence-only-until-marriage approach and the industry that spread it, researchers say, was partially due to federal funding and the government’s “stamp of approval.”
Heather Boonstra, director of public policy at the Guttmacher Institute and a co-author of its study, told Rewire: “My sense is that [government endorsement] really spurred the proliferation of a whole industry and gave legitimacy—and still does—to this very narrow approach.”
The money—$1.5 billion total between 1996 and 2010—was, of course, at the heart of a lot of that growth. School districts, community-based organizations, and faith-based institutions created programs using federal and state money. And a network of abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations grew up to provide the curricula and materials these programs needed. But the reach was broader than that: A number of states changed the rules governing sex education to insist that schools stress abstinence. Some even quoted all or part of the A-H definition in their state laws.
REHYA would provide less money to comprehensive education than the abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams did to their respective programs, but most advocates agree that it is important nonetheless. As Jesseca Boyer, vice president at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), told Rewire, “It establishes a vision of what the government could do in terms of supporting sex education.”
Boonstra noted that by providing the model for good programs and some money that would help organizations develop materials for those programs, REHYA could have a broader reach than just the programs it would directly fund.
The advocates Rewire spoke with agree on something else, as well: REHYA has very little chance of passing in this Congress. But they’re not deterred. Even if it doesn’t become law this year, or next, it is moving the pendulum back toward the comprehensive approach to sex education that our young people need.
CORRECTION: This article has been updated to clarify Jesseca Boyer’s position at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in February published a study of HIV rates among female sex workers in the United States. The authors of the review—which was limited to female sex workers because research on genderqueer, transgender, and male sex workers in the United States is almost nonexistent—acknowledged that the prevalence of HIV in this group is high. They also noted, however, that they had little material to work with: The paper reviewed 14 studies, of which only two were done in the last decade. Thus, the authors note, “The burden of HIV among this population remains poorly understood.”
This shocking paucity of recent data is a result, in large part, of the withdrawal of federal funds for research on “prurient” topics imposed during the George W. Bush administration. That shift to the right had a chilling effect on the federal HIV response as a whole—an effect that has been most enduring with regard to sex workers. Overwhelmingly, even as federal agencies and public health organizations have taken steps to address HIV in other vulnerable populations, sex workers have been left out of the conversation. This omission is one that HIV-focused activists, at the urging of sex worker rights organizations, are starting to notice.
Most countries recognize men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs, and sex workers as their primary “key populations”—defined, in United Nations terms, as “groups of people who are more likely to be exposed to HIV… and whose engagement is critical to a successful HIV response.” The U.S. government, however, recognizes the first two, among others, as key populations, but not sex workers.Virtually no federally funded HIV prevention and care services are targeted specifically to sex workers in the United States, although, ironically, U.S. funding does support some good HIV prevention programming for sex workers overseas.
Here at home, they remain largely overlooked. The CDC’s HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (HBSS) only alludes to sex workers indirectly as a subgroup of “heterosexuals at risk of HIV infection” who “exchange sex for money or drugs”—a designation that, obviously, ignores their diversity on multiple levels.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Meanwhile, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy Update, a federal blueprint for our national response written by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of National AIDS Policy, mentions gay and bisexual men 35 times, youth 23 times, transgender people 19 times, people who inject drugs 18 times, and incarcerated people twice. It does not mention sex workers—as such or by any euphemism—even once.
This virtual invisibility was reflected at this year’s National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta, billed as the “preeminent conference for scientists, public health officials, community workers, clinicians, and persons living with HIV.” Of the hundreds of abstracts presented via panels, posters, and roundtable discussions, only four mentioned sex workers as a distinct and relevant population to consider at this conference.
At a “listening session” on the NHPC’s third day, I asked Conference Co-Chair Jonathan Mermin—the director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention—about the lack of data on sex workers and HIV. Heacknowledged that the CDC has not collected the kind of data on HIV vulnerability among sex workers that it collects on other key groups.
This lack of inclusion is nothing new. In 2012, when the massive bi-annual International AIDS Conference took place in Washington, D.C., many foreign attendees with sex work or drug-using histories couldn’t get U.S. visas to attend.
Four blocks away from the two adjacent luxury hotels where NHPC was held, the HIV Prevention Justice Alliance (HIV-PJA) convened a free “People’s Mobilization on the National HIV/AIDS Strategy Counter Conference.” Nearly 100 participants signed in at its meeting space—some of them unable to afford NHPC registration and some dividing their time between the two conferences.
In the middle of the NHPC’s opening plenary, AIDS Foundation of Chicago organizer Maxx Boykin walked unannounced onto the stage, along with seven other Counter Conference participants, to protest the omission of sex workers from the National HIV/AIDS Strategy Update. “At this conference we talk about getting to zero new infections and ending the epidemic,” he said, “but we will never get there without tackling sex workers’ rights.” The group left the stage to substantial applause.
In contrast to the NHPC, the Counter Conference offered a striking example of HIV-focused advocacy groups joining sex worker rights organizations to address this exclusion. In the process, the collective also examined how structural factors such as housing, gentrification, and displacement affect people’s HIV risk and their HIV prevention and treatment choices.
Rather than choosing among hundreds of presentations, Counter Conference attendees met in plenary with experts leading discussions on topics that included the intersections of HIV criminalization, mass incarceration, and the war on drugs; the barriers to reproductive and sexual health care facing youth and women living with HIV; the escalating difficulty of getting HIV prevention and care in southern states without Medicaid expansion; the links between unemployment, economic injustice, and disparities in HIV-related outcomes; the health care and quality-of-life challenges faced by transgender people; and the need to develop solidarity between HIV and sex worker rights advocates.
At the latter panel, four leaders in sex worker rights organizations recommended thatHIV activists learn more about their local and state laws on sex work. Magalie Lerman, representing the Sex Workers Outreach Project, observed that “the political and social environment in the [United States] contributes to negative outcomes for people in the sex trade” in all kinds of ways.
It is not unusual, for example, for police and prosecutors to use the possession of multiple condoms as evidence of someone’s intention to sell sex. This practice has been exposed and subsequently prohibited in a few cities, but is still a common practice elsewhere. It both discourages condom use—thus heightening HIV risk—and provides another tool for unjustly arresting marginalized people, including sex workers and those profiled as sex workers, which frequently includes transgender women of color.
Lack of funding for sex worker-specific HIV prevention and outreach work is another issue where joint advocacy is needed. Lerman urged HIV-focused organizations to “deal us in on HIV prevention funding streams” and collectively demand resources to support local, peer-led empowerment programs that have proven effective in reducing HIV rates. Such projects received less than 1 percent of all HIV prevention funding worldwide in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. Domestic data on funding for this is, of course, nonexistent.
Another high priority was staff training and program adaptations to make HIV service agencies more accessible to sex workers. Panelist Deon Haywood represented Women With a Vision, a New-Orleans based organization providing harm reduction and HIV prevention services to Black women since the 1980s. She mentioned the need to“make the people running the organization look more like the people coming through the door.” She said this could be done by hiring peer counselors with lived experience in the sex trade and ensuring that their jobs were designed with room for advancement.
Panelist Cassie Warren from Chicago’s Howard Brown Health Center, meanwhile, talked about how agencies could expand their hours, locations (using mobile van services), and strategies to reach street-based youth engaged in survival sex. While the process of investigating and resolving existing barriers to care is labor-intensive, she said, HIV-focused service providers can’t expect to engage with high-risk youth without doing such work.
Building cross-sectoral communication and trust is another major challenge. Panelist Stella Zine, founder of the peer-driven support group Scarlet Umbrella Southern Art Alliance, pointed out that sex work can be a “heavy term” for some people. She urged participants to learn how to talk about HIV and sex work carefully, using language acceptable to people who need services but do not self-identify as sex workers.
When working with organizational partners rather than clients, on the other hand, Haywood citeda willingness to name the issues on the table explicitly—and to point out incidents where issues are misnamed or avoided—as essential to solidarity building. For example, Haywood commended the Counter Conference for bringing an explicit racial analysis to its discussions, an aspect she found missing at the NHPC.
The central theme of the session was “nothing about us without us.” Having been ignored and forcibly silenced in so many other settings, the panelists emphasized that sex worker rights advocates will partner with allies willing to ensure that sex workers are at the table whenever funding, policy, and strategy decisions affecting sex workers are under discussion.
After the sex workers panel, some of us walked back to the NHPC to attend the “listening session” mentioned above, where I raised the issue of sex worker invisibility. Dr. Mermin responded by acknowledging the gap and advised us of the CDC review published in February. He warned us, however, that this new paper would not contain the kind of key population data on sex workers that is being collected in other countries.
Indeed, the CDC’s website currently states that “there are few population-based studies of sex workers in the United States or globally” (emphasis added) due to their illegal status. In international terms, that assertion is badly outdated. A plethora of studies on sex workers and HIV have been published in the last five years, showing clearly that punitive approaches to sex work exacerbate HIV spread. Public health and rights-based approaches, on the other hand, not only reduce HIV rates substantially, but are cost-saving to boot.
Silencing groups by excluding them from pivotal conferences and omitting them in national strategic planning are forms of overt discrimination, as is simply refusing to include them accurately in population surveys. If uncounted, they do not officially exist and do not have to be served. This political decision results in an absence of much-needed evidence.
Dr. Mermin added, however, that we don’t have to wait for solid numbers or data to increase national efforts to deliver services successfully targeted to sex workers. Was he signalling a federal shift, at last, toward the public inclusion of sex workers in our national HIV response? Hard to tell—but the odds of that occurring are undoubtedly better if pressure for such inclusion escalates.