C. White on December 7, 2015
Peters contends that “abolitionist feminist groups” identify sex trafficking as “nothing more or less than globalized prostitution”, and that all sex traffic victims are prostitutes. On the other hand, sex traffic service providers and the police define sex traffic victims as forced prostitutes. The difference in perception complicates sex trafficking victim classification and the qualifications because NGOs need an objective definition so that victims may receive services, benefits, and treatments through the TVPA. But policies states that “only a victim of a ‘severe form of trafficking’ is entitled to services and benefits”, and by the standard of feminists, sex traffic victims do not quality for services, benefits, and treatments from the TVPA (Peters 2013:237).
Victims of severe trafficking automatically quality for “T-visa”, if they agree to assist in the investigation prosecution of their traffickers, generally from the submission of an I-914B (an endorsement application), which federal law enforcement agents completes. As soon as the form receives approval, the victim becomes eligible for government welfare benefits (free food and health insurance) and a work permit (Peters 2013:247).
Peters debates that sociocultural stereotypes and conceptions of victimization and sex dictates people’s perceptions, assumptions, and responses to sex trafficking. Consequently, prejudices overshadows clear meanings of sex trafficking (Peters 2013:248).
Reference
Peters, Alicia W. 2013. “‘Things that Involve Sex are Just Different’: US Anti-Trafficking Law and Policy on the Books, in Their Minds, and in Action”. Anthropology Quarterly 86:221-256.