Skirting legality

There’s nothing worse than a sequel. Aside from grossing nearly $150 million, what did “American Pie 2” do for us that “American Pie” didn’t do funnier, sooner and better? We all know that Carmen and Juni were obnoxious pre-tweens by “Spy Kids 2,” and I’m just waiting for somebody to discover Shooters I, the club conveniently located for Duke students that doesn’t make you feel like you’re going to inhale a staph infection. With few exceptions, sequels are cheaper, worse spin-offs of successful projects. The motivation doesn’t come from an artist’s vision but rather from an opportunity for profit. And that’s exactly what Tom Cat’s 2 is.

Tom Cat’s 2, in downtown Chapel Hill, is advertised as the home of “several beautyful ladies” on online classifieds advertisements for adult entertainment. Since its inception, the establishment has been strongly associated with less than moral, and certainly less than legal, behavior. In 2007 a columnist for The Daily Tar Heel was offered sexual services for money, but when a resulting police investigation turned back no conclusive evidence of prostitution, the business continued to function. Prostitution and sex trafficking don’t seem like local phenomena, but apparently they’re only a stone’s throw away. Taking your kids to the Chapel Hill children’s museum? You’re a mere two blocks from a sign reading “OPEN” and the endless possibilities that Tom Cat’s 2 offers.

Currently, the estimated age of entry to prostitution for U.S. citizens in the United States is 12 to 14, a statistic that is equal parts unacceptable and terrifying. There exist arguments that adults have the personal right to select prostitution as a livelihood, but the prostitution of children is by nature coercive and, for many reasons, intolerable. A majority of the estimated 14,000-18,000 foreign nationals trafficked across our borders every year are at risk of being forced into the sex industry, and there is a high correlation between both prostitution and sex trafficking (prostitution minus the consent). Until sex trafficking truly disappears on a domestic level, something needs to change about the way we respond to both.

For some, the legalization of prostitution is upheld as an argument to ensure its regulation. By allowing licensed brothels to operate, local governments could ensure appropriate treatment of prostitutes, perhaps even providing services for STD prevention on top of guaranteeing that prostitutes are non-coerced adults. Currently, it’s nearly impossible to regulate the industry; sting operations must use valuable police-hours in undercover positions and investigations sometimes fail to come to fruition. So prostitution sees the same argument as drug trafficking: legalize it and remove the power of the ringleaders.

Enter Amsterdam and its famous red light district. In 2000, prostitution was legalized in the Netherlands and brothels were allowed to operate after going through a licensing process. However, it proved easy for sex trafficking criminals to disguise coerced and trafficked individuals as legal and consenting. Organized crime found a safe haven, and independent of the moral questions behind prostitution itself, the legalization seemed to be a magnet for trafficking, illicit drug trade, killings and other outlets of organized crime. Legalizing prostitution made it no easier to regulate.

Just a year later, Sweden adopted a similar yet infinitely more effective tack: legalizing prostitution while criminalizing the purchase of sex. The risk associated with engaging in commercial sex was shifted and it was the men caught with prostitutes who ran the risk of jail time and fines. The label “john” was a punishment in and of itself for offenders, causing humiliation and potential harm for careers. Pimps, too, ran the risk of prosecution under these new statutes. The prostitutes themselves were allowed to seek support without penalty. This allowance was perhaps the most valuable; more often than not prostitution arises as a result of destitution, homelessness or abuse, and now victims could seek the support they required without fear of repercussion. Victims of sexual trafficking were further allowed to claim damages against johns for taking advantage of them, and Sweden saw great decreases in sex trafficking and improvement in quality of life for formerly at risk women.

In practice, generic decriminalization has proven a nightmare. But Sweden’s innovative methods allow for the impetus for change to be placed upon the buyer; those providing the demand for prostitution are forced to take responsibility for the legality of their consumerism. Men, or women for that matter, who feel harassed by prostitutes soliciting sex are still protected under laws against sexual harassment and assault, so no single individual is left without the protection of the law. What’s been done in Sweden has proven effective.

Looking back at Franklin Street, at the United States, the number of children and adults that risk exploitation is terrifying. Businesses like Tom Cat’s 2 can seem comical with their poorly spelled signs and uncomfortable enticements, but prostitution is hardly harmless. Regarding establishments like Tom Cat’s 2 as such only trivializes the issue. Perhaps it’s time to readdress something that, while a little uncomfortable for most, is an issue that would be tragically detrimental for the United States to skirt.