Ethical Question

[SEVERUSMAX]

.....if YOU own your body, do you have the right to surrender that ownership to another person? I'm wondering this because of a germ of a story idea I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it. I know such laws sound strange, but if everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they please, to work or stay at home, to have kids or not, etc., then they would presumably have that right. That's my tack on it. Logically, it makes sense. You have the right to give up anything that belongs to YOU, including yourself.

 

[BlackShanglan]

.....if YOU own your body, do you have the right to surrender that ownership to another person? I'm wondering this because of a germ of a story idea I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it. I know such laws sound strange, but if everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they please, to work or stay at home, to have kids or not, etc., then they would presumably have that right. That's my tack on it. Logically, it makes sense. You have the right to give up anything that belongs to YOU, including yourself.

Works for me. I think this is essentially an extension of the arguments for legalizing prostitution as well. If you own your body, you have the right to make a commodity of it. It also fits in with current arguments about whether people should be allowed to pay others for their organs. Right now, most medical ethicists frown on that, largely due to the potential for exploitation between the very wealthy and the very poor. But if you're taking a purely capitalistic / personal rights stance, I think it's consistent.

Shanglan

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

See, I am thinking of a futuristic society here, ruled by a superhuman being with incredible psychic powers, who legislates such a position, in order to enable TPE (Total Power Exchange) contracts to be legally binding. Of course, it also means that people heavily in debt can extricate themselves from it by selling their bodies for an indefinite time, in the hopes of being emancipated with a clean slate later. Sometimes their work is sexual, sometimes not. Incidentally, a lot of Roman slavery was like this, though far from all of it, of course. Impoverished Greeks sold themselves. Mind you, they were mostly men who worked for about a decade or so as scribes, clerks, or tutors, and then were emancipated (gaining Roman citizenship as a result). Greece was a poor, underpopulated shell of its former self by the late Republic.

 

[Guest]

I think that would be a slippery slope for a government to allow.

The motivations of the haves would to use their power to even more aggressively take from the have-nots thus forcing them into slavery and increasing the size of the slave class.

Slaves, by definition, could not participate in government, vote, etc. thus giving the haves even more power and control.

Thus, if a government permitted voluntary slavery, it would lead to the end of government eventually as power became concentrated into fewer hands.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

.....if YOU own your body, do you have the right to surrender that ownership to another person? I'm wondering this because of a germ of a story idea I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it. I know such laws sound strange, but if everyone has the right to do with their bodies as they please, to work or stay at home, to have kids or not, etc., then they would presumably have that right. That's my tack on it. Logically, it makes sense. You have the right to give up anything that belongs to YOU, including yourself.

Legally, you do not. You can not surrender your freedoms by contract, even if you wanted to. Several Neighborhood covenants have failed judicial review, because they make surrendering some freedom a condition of living in the community. I'm reminded of one that specified you couldn't sell your home to a minority when you wished to leave. Someone did and the courts ruled that the sale was leagal, the covenant was not able to remove the right to dispose of your property to whomever you chose.

I would say your idea suffers from an inherent weakness. People could be coerced or tricked into forfieting their freedom. Of course you have full authority to do whatever you like with far future stories, or even near future ones. Part of the dark future genre is building on weaknesses and trend syou see in the world of today.

It would all hinge on how well you could rationalize/justify society moving in that direction. And that is far more a question of your skill as a writer than of the inherent ethical considerations.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that would be a slippery slope for a government to allow.

The motivations of the haves would to use their power to even more aggressively take from the have-nots thus forcing them into slavery and increasing the size of the slave class.

Slaves, by definition, could not participate in government, vote, etc. thus giving the haves even more power and control.

Thus, if a government permitted voluntary slavery, it would lead to the end of government eventually as power became concentrated into fewer hands.

Good point of concern. Has occurred to me. At what point does preventing abuses become more important than the full exercise of people's rights?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Legally, you do not. You can not surrender your freedoms by contract, even if you wanted to. Several Neighborhood covenants have failed judicial review, because they make surrendering some freedom a condition of living in the community. I'm reminded of one that specified you couldn't sell your home to a minority when you wished to leave. Someone did and the courts ruled that the sale was leagal, the covenant was not able to remove the right to dispose of your property to whomever you chose.

I would say your idea suffers from an inherent weakness. People could be coerced or tricked into forfieting their freedom. Of course you have full authority to do whatever you like with far future stories, or even near future ones. Part of the dark future genre is building on weaknesses and trend syou see in the world of today.

It would all hinge on how well you could rationalize/justify society moving in that direction. And that is far more a question of your skill as a writer than of the inherent ethical considerations.

Interesting legal point. I was primarily thinking of this philosophical position being the rationale or justification behind a change in the laws.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Interesting legal point. I was primarily thinking of this philosophical position being the rationale or justification behind a change in the laws.

I would have trouble seeing it move that way. Slavery is, illegal in most of the world, even those countries that allow it pay lip service to it being outlawed. The potential for abuse, would seem to me too great for any government to contenance.

It is one thing to enter into a Dom/sub contract. I seriously doubt any of them, no matter how carefully worded would hold up if the sub decided to back out and the Dom presured them in a court of law as breeching a contract. I think the legal word is unconcienable, but I could be off.

If it were me, and I wanted to build such a society, I wouldn't focus on the philosophy. I'd start it with something plausible. With the explosion in crime and the fact government and bussiness are in bed regularly, it's not too hard to swallow that future administration might begin faming out convicts to work for industry. That kind of makes sense, in that the government would be making money to pay for the prisoner's upkeep, and industry could get a fairly substantial labor pool, for whom they had to pay no benefits. Most people probably wouldn't raise too much cane and it could be upehld by judical review on the grounds that those incarcerated have a debt to repay to society.

Working from that premise it wouldn't bee to difficult to see unskilled laborers, forced out of jobs. You could flow then to legally binding service contracts become the norm, where by a worker would agree to terms and conditions similar to those imposed by Henery Ford. With alittle patience and imagination, you could see the strictures on slavery loosened over time, until the strictures were weak enough to allow for the passing of legislation that allowed people to voluntarily become slaves.

In such a scenario, it's not likely, but it isplausible enough that a reader would probably be willing to suspend disbelief. And as an author, that's all the liscence you really need.

 

[mack_the_knife]

One assumption fairly common in Cyberpunk settings is the leasing of one's franchise. In exchange for a a dorm room and basic food needs, the extremely impoverished sell their vote to whomever will give them the best subsidy for it.

That being said, that is more a form of vote buying than indenture, which seems what you're leaning toward. I would imagine that the terms of the 'contract' would be quite specific in both duties and duration, as well as the penalties for breech of the contract.

Open ended contracts would be possible, but very dangerous to get oneself under. There would likely be laws, as Colly points out, that would supercede any contract.

Also, though, there could be a corrupt nation or 'dystopia' where most anything goes, and many people could be sold into indefinite servitude at their own request, though I doubt many would do so without severe desperation and even then would ask minimal guarantees on treatment, housing, and privileges.

---edit Colly's concept of 'criminials as slaves' is more plausible, where the government rents out laborers to people and corporations in exchange for taking over their incarceration and upkeep costs. Of course a corrupt government could do special 'request' arrests for particular persons that someone wanted to be sure ended up in someone else's hand for whatever purpose.

---
"I've been an indent for four years now, and let me tell you, brothel work - assembly line style - is no walk in the park. At least they give me Sundays off and I do get three squares a day, though. The med-scans are nice, too, and they keep me from totally falling apart. They even caught the onset of diabetes and knocked that out before it got a toe hold. Why do you care about this stuff anyway? Not that I care what you do with your own creds, chum." The girl turned toward me, still sitting on her little bed and held out a cigarette to me. "Got a light?" she asked. They did not let their 'working women' have lighters in the brothel-dorms.

I slid my credcard through the scanner and saw my balance drop twenty Euros before leaving. "Boss?" she asked after me as I walked down the hallway, trying to ignore the sounds emerging from the other shoebox-sixed rooms. I turned around. "Could you send the next guy up when you get to the lobby?"

I gave her a curt nod and turned back toward the front. Another girl passed me, wearing the collar of another indent. It was painted red, a lifer. She would never slip her collar, unless her owner simply took mercy on her. She gave me a weak smile, but her eyes were even deader than the girl back in the room. Dead eyes - I really am tired of looking into those.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One assumption fairly common in Cyberpunk settings is the leasing of one's franchise. In exchange for a a dorm room and basic food needs, the extremely impoverished sell their vote to whomever will give them the best subsidy for it.

That being said, that is more a form of vote buying than indenture, which seems what you're leaning toward. I would imagine that the terms of the 'contract' would be quite specific in both duties and duration, as well as the penalties for breech of the contract.

Open ended contracts would be possible, but very dangerous to get oneself under. There would likely be laws, as Colly points out, that would supercede any contract.

Also, though, there could be a corrupt nation or 'dystopia' where most anything goes, and many people could be sold into indefinite servitude at their own request, though I doubt many would do so without severe desperation and even then would ask minimal guarantees on treatment, housing, and privileges.

---edit Colly's concept of 'criminials as slaves' is more plausible, where the government rents out laborers to people and corporations in exchange for taking over their incarceration and upkeep costs. Of course a corrupt government could do special 'request' arrests for particular persons that someone wanted to be sure ended up in someone else's hand for whatever purpose.

---
"I've been an indent for four years now, and let me tell you, brothel work - assembly line style - is no walk in the park. At least they give me Sundays off and I do get three squares a day, though. The med-scans are nice, too, and they keep me from totally falling apart. They even caught the onset of diabetes and knocked that out before it got a toe hold. Why do you care about this stuff anyway? Not that I care what you do with your own creds, chum." The girl turned toward me, still sitting on her little bed and held out a cigarette to me. "Got a light?" she asked. They did not let their 'working women' have lighters in the brothel-dorms.

I slid my credcard through the scanner and saw my balance drop twenty Euros before leaving. "Boss?" she asked after me as I walked down the hallway, trying to ignore the sounds emerging from the other shoebox-sixed rooms. I turned around. "Could you send the next guy up when you get to the lobby?"

I gave her a curt nod and turned back toward the front. Another girl passed me, wearing the collar of another indent. It was painted red, a lifer. She would never slip her collar, unless her owner simply took mercy on her. She gave me a weak smile, but her eyes were even deader than the girl back in the room. Dead eyes - I really am tired of looking into those.

In my cyberpunk world, slavery exists, but it's not legally upheld. It's most often a "company store" kind of debt slavery, where the person has a need or vice and the provider is the only, or cheapest source. So the waitress is a VR junkie and needs her chips, or the prostitute is on Slam and her "boss" provides it.

It's all coercive though. I've never tried to write anything with volunatry slavery as a centerpiece.

 

[mack_the_knife]

In my cyberpunk world, slavery exists, but it's not legally upheld. It's most often a "company store" kind of debt slavery, where the person has a need or vice and the provider is the only, or cheapest source. So the waitress is a VR junkie and needs her chips, or the prostitute is on Slam and her "boss" provides it.

It's all coercive though. I've never tried to write anything with volunatry slavery as a centerpiece.

That sound more like the way I would handle it, too, honestly. It's not legal, but pretty common, and most people know about it, but it's just winked and nodded at.

 

[oggbashan]

It used to be fairly common in the 19th and early 20th century with unskilled labour contracts with foreign labour such as railroad building. Chinese workers in Northern Australia were effectively 'wage slaves' as were some Chinese workers on the construction of US railroads. The other workers objected to the Chinese, not because of their race ('Chinese' then meant anyone from SE Asia) but because the wage slaves undercut free workers.

The contract effectively made the employee a slave for the duration of the contract, at the end of which the employee had to return to the country of origin. The employee's rights were signed away in exchange for pay below the norm in the employing country.

Something like it still happens in the developed world with employee visas for domestic servants. The servant only has the right to be in the employer's country of residence while employed and if fired, has to leave the country at their own expense. There have been several court cases in the UK where effective slavery and torture of imported domestic servants has been proved. Usually the employer and employee have been from an undeveloped country and the employee was treated as they would have been in the country of origin. If the case is won, the servant still loses because they have to leave the country.

Og

 

[mack_the_knife]

Something like it still happens in the developed world with employee visas for domestic servants. The servant only has the right to be in the employer's country of residence while employed and if fired, has to leave the country at their own expense. There have been several court cases in the UK where effective slavery and torture of imported domestic servants has been proved. Usually the employer and employee have been from an undeveloped country and the employee was treated as they would have been in the country of origin. If the case is won, the servant still loses because they have to leave the country.

Og

I saw a very good movie based on that and the interactions with illegals in Britain a while back. I suppose stuff like that goes on here, as well, very chilling.

 

[3113]

I had where the world has a single government and laws that allow slavery on one condition: if people sell THEMSELVES into it.

Wait...this is fiction? Joking. Kinda. Cults are often a form of voluntary slavery, afterall. The cult member gives the leader and cult all worldly goods and agrees to do whatever they tell him to do. In some cases, Heaven's Gate for example, that has included such things as castration and suicide. So, in a way, there already is voluntary slavery of a sort. But if it was put on the books, as it were, then the interesting thing is that it likely would not be free of government interference--just as legalized prostitution in Nevada has to follow state laws.

If it's voluntary, then you're going to have people on both sides demanding federal, state and local laws to protect their clients. For example: are there standard contracts, or is it drawn up on an individual basis? And what are the laws if the contracts are broken? Can either side get out of the contract or are they both "enslaved" to it for however many years? For that matter, is there a limit on years for such contracts? How old does a person have to be to enter into such a contract...and how is it decided that they are of sound mind? Does anything they own go to the slave owner--or does that property go to their family and the owner only gets the slave?

And what if your slave gets pregnant? We assume the kid is free (voluntary slavery so kids can't be property)...so is the owner responsible for raising that kid since the mother is a slave and NOT responsible for herself? If the slave breaks the law, especially at the owners orders, is the owner punished because, again, the slave is not responsible for any of her actions? Does that mean she could murder someone and say her master ordered it? Can she testify in a court of law? Against her owner? Are there standard laws created by the government to protetct the slave (like, they have to be fed and house and give them medical)? Or to protect the slave owner for that matter?

If you hire a worker and he doesn't do your work, you can fire him. But if you contract a slave, you OWN this person, then if they don't do their work...what can you do to them? Can you sell them? We assume enslavement includes ownership of body and talents, but does that mean you can damage them? I'm not talking about slapping your slave for messing up, I'm talking cutting off their arm. And if you're too enfeebled to punish them, are there places to take them to where they can be punished? If so, well, now you've got another place that going to come under at least state if not government regulations.

In the end, the real problem with voluntary slavery is that a person can enter into it thinking the other person is going to be reasonable...and then three or four years down the line...the owner gets weird and dangerous, and suddenly the slave finds himself owned by someone who wants to castrate him. And this is why you'd really end up with government laws about such dicy deals. Because people can be tricked or fooled--or people you trust can just decide one day to do something criminal. A person who was trustworthy in handling money for years suddenly embezzles it. A guy sells himself into slavery to a rational, trustworthy man--who then starts smoking certain drugs and becomes irrational and abusive. Can the slave get out of the contract because the man he sold himself to has gone wonky and just isn't himself any longer?

ARE the contracts transferable? You sell yourself to a guy who then gets a gambling problem and puts your contract on the table? Is that legal or not in this voluntary slavery game? Because when you think about people saying, "I own my body and can do what I like with it!" it usually means they still have a choice. The legalized prostitute can pick and chose her clients. And the voluntary slave would seem to be able to pick and choose his owner, yes?

Sounds like a very sticky problem for state and local governments if not federal law. And I can see courts overflowing with breech of contract cases...and I can see several shelters for abused slaves popping up....

Sound like you've got yourself a novel

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

All of you raise good concerns. MY main ethical qualm is the irrevocable nature of such an act. If you turn ownership of your body over to someone else, you no longer own it and thus have no rights. That person can then do what they wish with you, presumably. Thus, what began as a consensual act has turned into something less than consensual.

After all, much of the reason that subs or slaves in the BDSM community feel relatively secure in signing such contracts is the fact that they CAN be revoked by either party and are not legally binding. They are a mutual arrangement by consent. If, on the other hand, any arrangement becomes such that you CAN'T back out, then liberty has become so extreme that it has approached tyranny on the other end of the spectrum.

I think that it is safe to say that such a scenario creates an ethical dilemma for that reason. However, it is a possible, logical consequence of full ownership of ourselves, no matter how uncomfortable that might be. I am not one to shrink from uncomfortable ramifications of a premise. Then again, we own other kinds of property, and that ownership is not unrestricted. As the abortion debate demonstrates, possession is not a clear-cut issue by any means.

This ethical issue arose out of the story idea, rather than vice versa. I stopped myself when mentally condemning the practice by asking myself, "But IS it wrong? Don't we own ourselves? Ergo, can't we give up that right?" Personally, I wouldn't do it, but then again, I am not a submissive person by nature. I can't conceive of great numbers of people doing this in a truly voluntary fashion, but SOME probably would.

This might well belong in a dystopia. Of course, I have already dealt with indentured servitude (in "Sergeant's Concubines", a story which I still plan to complete). This is more extreme, perhaps to the point of being dystopian. I guess that I have a natural talent for extreme, futuristic, or dystopian scenarios. I PREFER to think outside of the box, which often leads to odd visions of the future.

I appreciate all of the input. Who knows how this might turn out. I conceive of this world being run by a sort of Nietzschian superman with psychic powers. He is a kind of benevolent dictator, who allows much personal freedom, but limits political democracy. Being Nietzschian, he transvaluates the concepts of ownership, freedom, and slavery so that the old rules no longer apply in the public imagination. His right-hand man hires a secretary, who doesn't want to be the deputy's girlfriend, but DOES want some kind of legally binding relationship with him for her own sense of security, so he suggests slavery. Not sure about the details of how to work that out.

I am also thinking of a dystopia with a much DIFFERENT outlook on slavery, where the chastity/cuckolding side of the BDSM scene is regarded as inherently non-consensual, and thus outlawed (with the guilty parties consigned to Alaskan penal colonies). This is done under a military strongman/warlord who has an axe to grind with the more radical factions of the feminist movement. Like I said, I have a talent for this kind of scenario, I think.

 

[kendo1]

Legally, you do not. You can not surrender your freedoms by contract, even if you wanted to. Several Neighborhood covenants have failed judicial review, because they make surrendering some freedom a condition of living in the community. I'm reminded of one that specified you couldn't sell your home to a minority when you wished to leave. Someone did and the courts ruled that the sale was leagal, the covenant was not able to remove the right to dispose of your property to whomever you chose.

I would say your idea suffers from an inherent weakness. People could be coerced or tricked into forfieting their freedom. Of course you have full authority to do whatever you like with far future stories, or even near future ones. Part of the dark future genre is building on weaknesses and trend syou see in the world of today.

It would all hinge on how well you could rationalize/justify society moving in that direction. And that is far more a question of your skill as a writer than of the inherent ethical considerations.

So the Devil can not own your soul?
Sorry, Beelzebub. The contract breaks the law.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

See, I am thinking of a futuristic society here, ruled by a superhuman being with incredible psychic powers, who legislates such a position, in order to enable TPE (Total Power Exchange) contracts to be legally binding...

Y'know, I'd say the part in bold and italics seems to give you a lot of leeway on what you can or cannot do. Yes, you need to establish internal logic, but if George Lucas can give us enough reason to accept that the Force is real, then why can't you take us a step or two past what we would naturally expect and bring this concept into play. How easy that would be seems to be more dependent on how deeply ingrained said slavery laws are in your plotline.

Example, from my own personal mental story file: I'm working on a story right now that involves George Romero's style of zombie roaming around, eating people, but the story itself isn't about zombies (how could it be, when they have no human attributes to define them as antagonists?). Where did they come from? I tell you straight out in the text that the main character doesn't know, then move on into the story, leaving the reader to simply accept or not that the world is nearly ruled by walking corpses, hungry for human flesh.

Personally, I think it works that way, but that's just me.

Q_C

 

[Pure]

Interesting topic,

It sounds odd to us, voluntary slavery, but it hardly seems unusual even a couple hundred years back.

Let's start with a right to your body.

Firstly, if you're in the losing army of a war, for a gazillion years, you're up for being killed. You receive a *favor* in being enslaved-- which most of us would take, surely (is that voluntary?).

Secondly, if children and wives are not equals, but subject to a master, he can, say, relieve the family's debt by selling the daughter--e.g., as a concubine.

Let us also consider that a serf, is semi voluntary. I'd extend the argument to a slave: For protection, you sell yourself to a stronger party and agree to serve.

As to the romance of 'erotic slavery,' that tricky. NOW, there is no legal standing, as several posters have pointed out. As to motives, that's tricky, for most people don't want something total AND irrevocable (afaik)-- it's the thought and illusion that gives the frisson.

 

[3113]

After all, much of the reason that subs or slaves in the BDSM community feel relatively secure in signing such contracts is the fact that they CAN be revoked by either party and are not legally binding. They are a mutual arrangement by consent.

There's another reason as well, which is the belief on the sub/slave half that the master/dom has their *best interests* at heart. The sub *wants* someone to control them, and the Master wants to control. The Dom actually does a lot of work and has a lot of responsibility. He/she has to literally think for both of them.

Compare this to involuntary slavery where you can literally work the slaves to death. They are sub-human and you don't have to care about them. It's better for business if you do, keep them healthy and fed, but you don't have to. You don't have to give them a day of rest, or sick days, or good food or anything. If they die, you buy another. You don't worry about doing right by them, you don't have to.

Voluntary slavery, on the other hand, makes things very sticky. If a person puts themselves up for sale, they can pick and choose--and demand a binding contract that promises that the master "Will not castrate!" In fact, there really MUST be a contract--otherwise the Master will renege and/or the slave will just leave. And the person selling themselves has to get something worthwhile for the sale--otherwise why not just get a job? For example, the master has to promise that the slave's entire family will be raised up out of poverty. Which, frankly, has been done. Many a courtesan has sold herself to a man to keep her family out of poverty.

Frankly...I don't see voluntary slavery as being very cost effective--and far to messy to impliment. How, after all, do you prove that the person signed the contract voluntarily?

Of course, if you really want people to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery...do anything you ask...just tell them you're going to put them on television. Reality shows have proven it. People will do anything to be on television.

 

[3113]

Secondly, if children and wives are not equals, but subject to a master, he can, say, relieve the family's debt by selling the daughter--e.g., as a concubine.

Not voluntary. The daughter would have to sell herself...which some have to help out their families.

 

[R. Richard]

So the Devil can not own your soul?
Sorry, Beelzebub. The contract breaks the law.

Actually, Daniel Webster decided that matter, some years back.

 

[oggbashan]

Slavery Lives!

Real slavery is not a thing of the past. It still exists in some countries.

Girl children are bought and sold in parts of the less developed world because they are a financial burden that a poor family cannot afford. The lucky ones might be employed as child workers in a factory and permitted to send some of their earnings back to their families. The unlucky ones have NO earnings because they are owned. All they get is barely enough food to enable them to continue to work.

Unfortunately in Europe, sexual slavery is too common, where women are brought to Europe with promises of well-paid work and are forced to work in the sex industry. Only this year, 2006, a number of women were freed by Police in the UK from slavery. They were working for their food and drugs, drugs they didn't want but were forced on them by their owners.

The contract signed in the country of origin may have provided for attachment of earnings to pay for travel to Europe, but once away from their home country the women's rights are ignored and force is used to make them provide sex to paying customers. There has been a recent discussion about whether prostitutes' customers should be asked to report if the women appear to be performing under duress. Whether the person reporting would be protected from the criminal gangs?

Unfortunately almost every large town in Europe has some slaves working as prostitutes. The degree of slavery may vary - the fact of slavery is still there.

Og

 

[SeaCat]

Real slavery is not a thing of the past. It still exists in some countries.

Girl children are bought and sold in parts of the less developed world because they are a financial burden that a poor family cannot afford. The lucky ones might be employed as child workers in a factory and permitted to send some of their earnings back to their families. The unlucky ones have NO earnings because they are owned. All they get is barely enough food to enable them to continue to work.

Unfortunately in Europe, sexual slavery is too common, where women are brought to Europe with promises of well-paid work and are forced to work in the sex industry. Only this year, 2006, a number of women were freed by Police in the UK from slavery. They were working for their food and drugs, drugs they didn't want but were forced on them by their owners.

The contract signed in the country of origin may have provided for attachment of earnings to pay for travel to Europe, but once away from their home country the women's rights are ignored and force is used to make them provide sex to paying customers. There has been a recent discussion about whether prostitutes' customers should be asked to report if the women appear to be performing under duress. Whether the person reporting would be protected from the criminal gangs?

Unfortunately almost every large town in Europe has some slaves working as prostitutes. The degree of slavery may vary - the fact of slavery is still there.

Og

Og,
Unfortunately this is not just in Europe but here In the United States as well. We hear about it, we see it in the newspapers but very little is done about it. Scary isn't it.

Not too long ago they arrested a 15 year old girl from Mexico. The charges against her? Prostitution. When she was questioned she claimed she had been brought north with her parents by coyotes. When they reached Miami the Coyotes raised the price of the transport to a point wher the parents couldn't pay. They sold their daughter into sexual slavery. (Okay I understand they were threatened with being murdered.) Two years later she was busted. The punishment? The parents were sent back to Mexico and she is still working the streets. As for the Coyotes, they were never caught.

Sad isn't it?

Cat

 

[Pure]

As a footnote, there is one still very common 'voluntary slavery', which goes to show that condition of it may appeal to some. I refer to enlistment, especially long term, in the military. There is literally a power of life or death, no just for infractions, but for any tasks assigned--e.g., going into battle.

Why do people sign up: three squares, a bed, and a certain kind of prestige.

3113 mentions a variant of this:
And the person selling themselves has to get something worthwhile for the sale--otherwise why not just get a job? For example, the master has to promise that the slave's entire family will be raised up out of poverty. Which, frankly, has been done. Many a courtesan has sold herself to a man to keep her family out of poverty.

This is not that different from some so called voluntary arrangements, such as seen in this city. Girl comes from Thailand and works either as 'lap dancer' or 'massage parlor attendant.' She sends most of the money home. That enables her family and children back home to live up a notch, e.g, send the kids to private schools, or schools with fees.

----
It really gets quite murky, as you look into it. What about the man who works in a dangerous mine so that his kids can get out of the poor town and area, and make it in another calling?

---
While I don't deny that what Ogg talks of, exists, I think it puts an inaccurate 'twist' on things, the equation of prostitution with kidnapping and coerced 'sex work':

Unfortunately in Europe, sexual slavery is too common, where women are brought to Europe with promises of well-paid work and are forced to work in the sex industry. Only this year, 2006, a number of women were freed by Police in the UK from slavery. They were working for their food and drugs, drugs they didn't want but were forced on them by their owners.

Conditions being what they are in Romania or Thailand or the Phlippines, you do not need to kidnap anyone and ply them with drugs. The prostitute wants money for her family; indeed she does her job, with her family's knowledge, which is not to say she's been 'sold'. She doesn't need to be. A dutiful daughter is going to want to help out.

There was a story widely publicized of a western guy in Thailand trying to 'free' a girl. He 'bought out' her pimp for 10 grand or whatever, and purchased a farm for her and her family to enable her retirement. In a year she was back on the job. There is simply no substitute for the money, and it's a given that the daughter's sacrifice is expected and appropriate.

So, even leaving aside the ambiguous 'erotic slavery' (which usually has an out), voluntary slavery is not unheard of and its reasons have a very similar sound to them, after a while. In our part of the world, we find ourselves puzzled: What's life without 'freedom'? Who wants a job with no time off, no benefit? Who want a job with physical danger?

What this ignores is the alternatives available, both to the slave and the family. The family's *survival* is at stake; 'freedom' 'danger' etc. become NON issues. An poor kid from 'Appalachia' who enlists is going from unemployment and misery to 'three squares' and a social status--doing what "the man" says is not a price one even thinks twice about.

 

[mack_the_knife]

As a footnote, there is one still very common 'voluntary slavery', which goes to show that condition of it may appeal to some. I refer to enlistment, especially long term, in the military. There is literally a power of life or death, no just for infractions, but for any tasks assigned--e.g., going into battle.

By extension all employment is a form of slavery - though most are of a part-time nature (as in you're not working for them all the time). Soldiers receive some financial compensation and other benifits that equate to money, as well. While you are in your employer's service, you are beholden to follow their orders, some dangerous, as well, first responders, taxi drivers, miners, etc.

There are rights and privileges granted to soldiers, outlined in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) while not the same as the rights granted to normal citizens, they are not inconsequential.