$pread Blog

For some reason, this image pushed me over the edge and into a pot of anti-trafficking-campaign resentment that's been boiling for weeks. (I know that ad is not about trafficking, it just reminded me of ones that are.) Here are some of the images associated with anti-sex trafficking organizations that really get my goat.  

She’s white, she’s beautiful, she’s sad in the pretty way (ie no ugly sobbing or snot from her nose)…she looks like the heroine of a period drama or generic Hollywood romance. Here’s the movie this poster was advertising. It’s not an anti-trafficking ad, but it uses the same aesthetic.(PS - What's up with the roses?!)

This ad is far more visually arresting than most. Just the silhouette of a man holding a gun to the woman’s head is pretty alarming. But I’m still troubled by this trend of using only sexy, skinny women to sell trafficking outrage. Upon first glance, like almost all anti-trafficking ads, this looks it's selling something within the sex industry. If your eyes don't linger, it just looks like a sign promoting a strip club.  

This woman is ridiculously beautiful. She doesn’t deserve to be held against her will, does she? Of course not! She’s beautiful. Beautiful women deserve better!

You know who else deserves better?  Everyone who is being made to work in any job against their will—be they fat or old or male or ugly. Being a human being is basically the only requirement for deserving help, or as the ad puts it, “hope.” 

OMG I get it already—trafficked women are really hot and sexy. That’s probably why they got trafficked in the first place. I feel like these campaigns are designed by rape apologists. “She was so hot, we had to kidnap her….” I get the whole “we’re using sex to grab your attention” angle, but couldn’t the people who are concerned about the way women’s* sexuality is being brutally abused and co-opted maybe reconsider the sex sells approach?

And the whole “real photo” thing? WTF. I’m guessing they’re imitating actual print ads for call girls (although holy cow when was the last time you saw one of those? Paging the 1990s!) but wouldn’t someone raise the point that it’s a bit ambiguous as to whether they’re claiming this is the real photo of a trafficked woman? And then that the idea of using real photos of trafficked women might be exploitative and repellent?

*I say women because in these campaigns, women are the only victims acknowledged. Occasionally children, but even then, always female.

This image accompanies an article about human trafficking on the Salvation Army’s website. I am not even kidding. Did they get this photo from an Italian Vogue layout? 

 This is, for me, the most iconic of the anti-trafficking ads because it was one of the first I encountered, and it’s still the most ludicrous. It seems like satire, doesn’t it? Flawless, shapely, stark white legs in nice heels, with an accessory that has all the malevolence of a belly chain. You probably don’t even believe that it’s a real ad. But it is. It’s by Amnesty International.

The website URL is barely visible. The “legcuffs” are, apparently, made of gold filigree. The crap fake-fur-covered handcuffs that are standard issue at every sex shop would do a better job of restraining someone. And in case you’re unfamiliar with those, let me assure you, they are utter crap. The coup de grace—her toenails are painted. Because say what you will about traffickers, but those pieces of slime have an eye for detail. 

On her tumblr, Melissa made a more salient point about picture number 3 ("don't be afraid to say it for her!"):

Also have to love the whole: don’t be afraid to say it for her, this woman has no agency and could surely not speak on her behalf. Don’t be afraid to assume that no decent woman would sell sex of her own volition. Those in the sex industry, willing or not, certainly don’t have a voice. Don’t worry about putting your words in her mouth — or anything else, for that matter.