It is important to be aware that the terminology used in reporting on arrests related to sex work has changed. When a customer is arrested, the sex worker is referred to as a “human trafficking victim” … and when a sex worker is arrested, they’re referred to as a “prostitute.” Whoever gets arrested definitely deserves it, right?
The details in this particular article are scant. That he is charged with “solicitation of prostitution” (the outdated verbiage there being from ordinance) suggests that it is possible that he was a customer of sex workers, and nothing more. Other articles make it more clear that the “ongoing arrangement” mentioned here is one where he employed this particular sex worker on a regular basis. Read “human trafficking victim” as “sex worker,” and you see that the real issue is sex work being criminalized.
There may well be details not made public that show a clearer picture, but I’ve seen enough reporting on such incidents to know not to sharpen pitchforks over the phrase “human trafficking” without details to support the sex worker not having agency.
It is the criminalization of sex work which makes such endeavors more dangerous for sex workers, for customers, and for communities.
I also don’t know the details of this particular matter beyond what’s in the coverage, but — anyone who knows cops and police work should know that your skepticism is warranted. Thanks.
allegedly for paying for sex with a woman he knew was a victim of human trafficking, court documents show.
The article explicitly states they were both victims of human trafficking, and that the cop knew it. If the cop was interested in legal sex work, he should have driven to Nevada.
I, similarly, agree that sex work should be legal. But it’s not legal in Houston, and it’s odd that you’re likening them to legal, professional sex workers when the reality is that Houston is literally the number 1 city in the U.S. for human trafficking.
These are almost 100% victims of human trafficking, and it’s weird you’re trying to paint them as something else.
It is important to be aware that the terminology used in reporting on arrests related to sex work has changed. When a customer is arrested, the sex worker is referred to as a “human trafficking victim” … and when a sex worker is arrested, they’re referred to as a “prostitute.” Whoever gets arrested definitely deserves it, right?
The details in this particular article are scant. That he is charged with “solicitation of prostitution” (the outdated verbiage there being from ordinance) suggests that it is possible that he was a customer of sex workers, and nothing more. Other articles make it more clear that the “ongoing arrangement” mentioned here is one where he employed this particular sex worker on a regular basis. Read “human trafficking victim” as “sex worker,” and you see that the real issue is sex work being criminalized.
There may well be details not made public that show a clearer picture, but I’ve seen enough reporting on such incidents to know not to sharpen pitchforks over the phrase “human trafficking” without details to support the sex worker not having agency.
It is the criminalization of sex work which makes such endeavors more dangerous for sex workers, for customers, and for communities.
I also don’t know the details of this particular matter beyond what’s in the coverage, but — anyone who knows cops and police work should know that your skepticism is warranted. Thanks.
The article explicitly states they were both victims of human trafficking, and that the cop knew it. If the cop was interested in legal sex work, he should have driven to Nevada.
I, similarly, agree that sex work should be legal. But it’s not legal in Houston, and it’s odd that you’re likening them to legal, professional sex workers when the reality is that Houston is literally the number 1 city in the U.S. for human trafficking.
These are almost 100% victims of human trafficking, and it’s weird you’re trying to paint them as something else.