When Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, it was hailed as a monumental step forward in the critical fight against “modern-day slavery.” And who could possibly be against fighting slavery? Our history class textbooks might have taught us we got rid of it during the Civil War, but sometime around the turn of the 21st Century, an impressively diverse cross-section of NGO activists, politicians, and law enforcement officials began gravely informing the public that “slavery” never actually went away, and in fact remained shockingly pervasive. Resolute action, they explained, would be needed at once to stamp out this hidden scourge.
Ask people to define the major crimes-robbery, shoplifting, murder, carjacking, etc.-and you'll get uniformly correct answers. Ask people to define sex trafficking and you'll not only get wrong answers, you'll get a different answer from everyone you ask! Even people most hysterically obsessed with the notion couldn't correctly define it with a gun to their head.
In 2011, Virginia Giuffre writes a 100 page memoir where she uses the word trafficking just once to describe not Jeffrey Epstein but another man who was apparently smuggling in prostitutes from Eastern Europe. By the end of the decade, the word trafficking has morphed to a degree that Giuffre can claim to have been "trafficked" and be the very face of trafficking victims.
Great article, but I think it should have been published in a print magazine or Compact or Quilette.
The younger sister of a guy I know was charged with sex trafficking in Washington (I dont remember if she was convicted) and while I dont remember the details I remember at the time from the newspaper story it sounded a lot like they just went across the state with a prostitute they were doing heroin with.
Now when I eat a delicious toasted Frontega Chicken sandwich, my mind will automatically ponder the nebulous definitions of sex trafficking and terrorism. Thanks Michael!
Sharing this with you, Michael. Author is my former supervisor
She mentored me during post graduate studies. Although she appeared excited to hear from me recently, when I reached out for a referee, she has stopped correspondence. I can only assume it's because of my criminal conviction (widely published in local media). With the sweeping hand of state power, one can go from star student to persona non grata. You can't make this shit up. It's frustrating and surreal to observe the phenomenon from multiple perspectives.
In one of her other publications she writes "sex trafficking is frighteningly easy to do" lol. Ohh indeed, because to moral entrepreneurs "trafficking" encompassing an increasingly broad scope of behaviours.
Great article. I've been waiting for something like this from you: a dissection of the trafficking racket as it has superseded prostitution, solicitation, kidnapping, rape, assault, and battery, as if none of the laws against those could protect us without the trafficking angle. And the use of decoys, especially online catfishers, is particularly illuminating. I wonder if decoys are necessary because actual victims are rare to nonexistent & the whole system would shut down without them.
Anyway, if anything of value is subjectively defined and can be anything, then even smiling at someone puts the smiler at risk. What about a frown? That too.
Traditional practices like arranged marriage and shotgun weddings could be considered "trafficking" by modern formulations, yet few people seem to object. This hysteria survives entirely on rhetorical framing.
Absolutely superb article. It could win the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism but it won't. Thanks Michael Tracey!
But um...couldn't Jeffrey Herman who "had gamely inserted himself into the saga of Saige Gonzales" be convicted of trafficking? Sort of reminds me of Maximilian Robespierre who was so pro-guillotine that he would wind up getting the same medicine for himself.
As a woman who was often lulled into consenting to sex with the belief that I might be loved, I learned through experience that this was not supported. Was I trafficked? Hardly. Tough and painful lessons but such is life. Being framed as a victim vs naive is significant.
Em-dashes are often vital for "flow" and I've been using them long before AI chatbots were a gleam in anyone's eye! You can kind of now recognize the way that AI tends to use them, which I don't think correlates much with how I tend to use them.
Indeed. Everything I write (fiction and otherwise), I want the reader to feel I'm sitting there on the sofa next to them, telling them the story. If they can't hear a human voice I've failed.
BRILLIANT article Michael, everything you said is so spot on. There is an attack on MEN and menopausal WHORES are grifting as victims. And the LAW is behind them, and the LAW & media ARE JOINED AT THE HIPS and work together to tag team the defendant before it even goes to trial. It's political Michael. The vultures in the LAW want to CONTROL MEN and w0e-MEN are the vehicle to do it now, w0e-MEN have been weaponized against MEN and as you so eloquently stated throughout crimes are being INVENTED that aren't really crimes and MEN are being criminalized for any kind of sexual liaison with a fe-MALE, in fact the LAW is FISHING for MEN and expanding the definition of rape/sexual assault/ so as to justify the sex crimes industry, because aCTUAL rape & trafficking is so rare it wouldn't feed the sex crimes industry. In summary: We now have statutory rape laws for ADULT w0e-MEN!
SPOILER ALERT: It gets even more ridiculous! In Texas you can be prosecuted for 'child pornography' for an Amine COMIC BOOK! If someone decides the cartoon image of a girl is underage, you can be prosecuted for Amine COMIC BOOKS!
Tracey, the piece is on point, and you're a great journalist, but my God do you need an editor; this could be half the length, or less! You spend the first half of the piece talking about how crazy things have become without actually describing what's happened. And the constant, unrelenting tone of sarcastic outrage makes it a chore to read — get to the point! Take this with a grain of salt — I'm not an editor — but some ideas (I might edit if I think of more):
- You've got a perfect opening 7 paragraphs in, though it could probably be less qualified. Everything above it could probably be cut, and maybe compressed into a couple of sentences below it. "since the passage of the TVPA in 2000 — when 'trafficking' really first became a 'thing,' having been reified with a comprehensive new statutory framework — a quiet revolution has been unleashed across American law and culture."
- Lead with the actual stories, the actual crazy things, and then use that as a vehicle to introduce the things that made it happen.
- You need like 20% of the sarcastic, outraged asides — if even that. No problem with polemic, especially when the subject deserves it (as this one does), but when it never lets up, it’s exhausting and decreases the effectiveness of the actual polemic, because nothing gets emphasized; it’s always on full blast.
- Needless to say, break up the paragraphs.
You've done incredible work — I don't subscribe to you for nothing. I just think you're hurting your reach (and decreasing readability) by being this long-winded and podcast-like.
I concur. Tracey's polemic is fun to read, but sometimes less is more. I wanna share your writing with people who've got just a casual interest in Epstein, trafficking etc. These audiences aren't necessarily a thesusaus with kicks. Accessibility & attention are currency when trying to cut through decades of sex panic. Make clear announcements that cut through entrenched newspeak ( aka " sex crime worsr crime" * read all about it* and "children are innocent", " what about the children?").
I always appreciate the breadth & depth of your vocabulary, but the content and analysis sometimes get lost. Allow them to play star roles without the razzle, dazzle of the grammar. Maybe just take off one piece as you hit upload MT? Lol tbf sometimes I can't even type so you know take what you will.
Don't change Michael. I love the excessive vocabulary. The writing is even better for anyone who has listened to you on a podcast. Although you don't like them, podcasts are perfect for your long-winded analysis. Reading your work is so much more fun because I can hear you saying everything.
Miss Noble did indeed 'traffic' herself as did, apparently, the 'woman' in Ohio that was willing to have oral and vaginal sex with lonely Mr. George. It gets a bit more fuzzy with Epstein and Maxwell because they would recruit these women/girls and throw 'parties' in which these girls would meet up with people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew et al and Epstein would video tape it. Epstein would reward the girls with money or jewelry and Epstein received valuable information in return. I believe Prince Andrew's legal troubles surround the leaked information, not the sex.
So, yes, there's a big, big difference between poor Harvey and Epstein. The law was weaponized against Harvey and I am sure there's a very interesting story as to why Harvey and why then.
Who could be against legislation fighting slavery and exploitation?
I can think of one fat moron mouth breather who mocks such things by eating pizza on his podcast. Every legitimate associate you’ve ever collaborated with has dropped you like a fat bloviating filibustering hot rock.
"bro really read 3000 words on government overreach and his only two brain cells rubbed together to say 'durr u eat pizza so u pro slavery'. literal room temp iq on full display. nobody is defending real slavery u absolute clown shoe, the article just proved the feds hijacked the word to lock dudes up over bad tinder dates and 100 bucks. skipping straight to fat jokes cuz ur reading comprehension peaked in 3rd grade and u got zero actual counter arguments. deeply embarrassing for u honestly. log off."
Who could be against being " kind & inclusive"? Who could be against "trans rights are human rights?". Wait hang on, you wanna put people with dicks, aka men, in female prisons? Wait... what do you mean, women have to compete in Olympics level boxing, against testosterone jacked blokes? We have to question dogma. We need to analyse the meaning & terms of legal definitions.
One reader correctly noted, that if you ask a layperson the definition of; robbery, assault, break n enter, etc you'll get a fairly coherent answer. Sex trafficking is the opposite. That's why Tracey attempts to get some construct validity to this particular crime category.
Only FOOLS don't see the overreach and the unjustified criminalization of MEN who didn't actually do the things they are being FRAMED for. You think like a menopausal w0e-MAN, believing in gossip, ZERO critical thinking skills, ZERO objectivity, ZERO research, gyn0-centric BETA/CUCK/SIMP
Every point Michael makes here is SPOT ON and shows what perilous times we live in where MEN are being hunted and branded for FAKE crimes they didn't even commit, due to ANY sexual encounter they had could be made criminal using w0e-MEN as bait trapping MEN for FAKE INVENTED crimes just to feed the sex crimes industry
I bet you are a pedophile. Convicted, claiming innocence, likely brain damaged. Probably traumatized by society’s willingness to remind you that you’re a pathetic homely little fella. Maybe instead of destroying another child’s innocence you should go fuck yourself instead.
Incoherent drivel from a serial pedophile apologist. Like lord lard ass, which would explain why you enjoy his wacky pizza grape soda antics. I log on merely to torture the evil pricks who defend his idiocy. Likely child predators and the parents of convicted predators who can’t bring themselves to accept that their little cherub grew into a monster. If you talk like you write you should probably move back to the country you came from.
Ask people to define the major crimes-robbery, shoplifting, murder, carjacking, etc.-and you'll get uniformly correct answers. Ask people to define sex trafficking and you'll not only get wrong answers, you'll get a different answer from everyone you ask! Even people most hysterically obsessed with the notion couldn't correctly define it with a gun to their head.
In 2011, Virginia Giuffre writes a 100 page memoir where she uses the word trafficking just once to describe not Jeffrey Epstein but another man who was apparently smuggling in prostitutes from Eastern Europe. By the end of the decade, the word trafficking has morphed to a degree that Giuffre can claim to have been "trafficked" and be the very face of trafficking victims.
Great article, but I think it should have been published in a print magazine or Compact or Quilette.
The younger sister of a guy I know was charged with sex trafficking in Washington (I dont remember if she was convicted) and while I dont remember the details I remember at the time from the newspaper story it sounded a lot like they just went across the state with a prostitute they were doing heroin with.
Now when I eat a delicious toasted Frontega Chicken sandwich, my mind will automatically ponder the nebulous definitions of sex trafficking and terrorism. Thanks Michael!
Teachingabouttrafficking.pdf https://share.google/qpvkw1MAa6ZZ3SdGW
Sharing this with you, Michael. Author is my former supervisor
She mentored me during post graduate studies. Although she appeared excited to hear from me recently, when I reached out for a referee, she has stopped correspondence. I can only assume it's because of my criminal conviction (widely published in local media). With the sweeping hand of state power, one can go from star student to persona non grata. You can't make this shit up. It's frustrating and surreal to observe the phenomenon from multiple perspectives.
In one of her other publications she writes "sex trafficking is frighteningly easy to do" lol. Ohh indeed, because to moral entrepreneurs "trafficking" encompassing an increasingly broad scope of behaviours.
Great article. I've been waiting for something like this from you: a dissection of the trafficking racket as it has superseded prostitution, solicitation, kidnapping, rape, assault, and battery, as if none of the laws against those could protect us without the trafficking angle. And the use of decoys, especially online catfishers, is particularly illuminating. I wonder if decoys are necessary because actual victims are rare to nonexistent & the whole system would shut down without them.
Anyway, if anything of value is subjectively defined and can be anything, then even smiling at someone puts the smiler at risk. What about a frown? That too.
More to come -- this article probably contains only like 10% of the maddening material I've collected recently.
https://substack.com/@briant593768/note/c-283507219?r=8lz27x&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action You are right, anything I can help you with ?
Traditional practices like arranged marriage and shotgun weddings could be considered "trafficking" by modern formulations, yet few people seem to object. This hysteria survives entirely on rhetorical framing.
Absolutely superb article. It could win the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism but it won't. Thanks Michael Tracey!
But um...couldn't Jeffrey Herman who "had gamely inserted himself into the saga of Saige Gonzales" be convicted of trafficking? Sort of reminds me of Maximilian Robespierre who was so pro-guillotine that he would wind up getting the same medicine for himself.
As a woman who was often lulled into consenting to sex with the belief that I might be loved, I learned through experience that this was not supported. Was I trafficked? Hardly. Tough and painful lessons but such is life. Being framed as a victim vs naive is significant.
Michael, I have bad news for you. At least in our shared taste for common sense and withering scorn, I must declare we are now soulmates.
And for using em-dashes too. They are my favorite type of punctuation and I heap infinite scorn on any killjoy who declares them proof of AI writing.
Em-dashes are often vital for "flow" and I've been using them long before AI chatbots were a gleam in anyone's eye! You can kind of now recognize the way that AI tends to use them, which I don't think correlates much with how I tend to use them.
Indeed. Everything I write (fiction and otherwise), I want the reader to feel I'm sitting there on the sofa next to them, telling them the story. If they can't hear a human voice I've failed.
BRILLIANT article Michael, everything you said is so spot on. There is an attack on MEN and menopausal WHORES are grifting as victims. And the LAW is behind them, and the LAW & media ARE JOINED AT THE HIPS and work together to tag team the defendant before it even goes to trial. It's political Michael. The vultures in the LAW want to CONTROL MEN and w0e-MEN are the vehicle to do it now, w0e-MEN have been weaponized against MEN and as you so eloquently stated throughout crimes are being INVENTED that aren't really crimes and MEN are being criminalized for any kind of sexual liaison with a fe-MALE, in fact the LAW is FISHING for MEN and expanding the definition of rape/sexual assault/ so as to justify the sex crimes industry, because aCTUAL rape & trafficking is so rare it wouldn't feed the sex crimes industry. In summary: We now have statutory rape laws for ADULT w0e-MEN!
SPOILER ALERT: It gets even more ridiculous! In Texas you can be prosecuted for 'child pornography' for an Amine COMIC BOOK! If someone decides the cartoon image of a girl is underage, you can be prosecuted for Amine COMIC BOOKS!
No sympathy for that scumbag Weinstein, but they always use the ugliest, vilest defendants to set the most vicious precedents.
The trafficking of financial enslavement is far more pervasive and worth exploring
back in my days, I thought sex trafficking used to look like this, https://youtu.be/EKXur2fE1NI?si=CkG4n1oO37uf-3nk
now it just means this, https://mtracey.substack.com/p/these-professional-epstein-survivors?r=2l277o&selection=968c45e9-6291-417e-a2d4-3ed2401d2bb3&utm_campaign=post-share-selection
Tracey, the piece is on point, and you're a great journalist, but my God do you need an editor; this could be half the length, or less! You spend the first half of the piece talking about how crazy things have become without actually describing what's happened. And the constant, unrelenting tone of sarcastic outrage makes it a chore to read — get to the point! Take this with a grain of salt — I'm not an editor — but some ideas (I might edit if I think of more):
- You've got a perfect opening 7 paragraphs in, though it could probably be less qualified. Everything above it could probably be cut, and maybe compressed into a couple of sentences below it. "since the passage of the TVPA in 2000 — when 'trafficking' really first became a 'thing,' having been reified with a comprehensive new statutory framework — a quiet revolution has been unleashed across American law and culture."
- Lead with the actual stories, the actual crazy things, and then use that as a vehicle to introduce the things that made it happen.
- You need like 20% of the sarcastic, outraged asides — if even that. No problem with polemic, especially when the subject deserves it (as this one does), but when it never lets up, it’s exhausting and decreases the effectiveness of the actual polemic, because nothing gets emphasized; it’s always on full blast.
- Needless to say, break up the paragraphs.
You've done incredible work — I don't subscribe to you for nothing. I just think you're hurting your reach (and decreasing readability) by being this long-winded and podcast-like.
I concur. Tracey's polemic is fun to read, but sometimes less is more. I wanna share your writing with people who've got just a casual interest in Epstein, trafficking etc. These audiences aren't necessarily a thesusaus with kicks. Accessibility & attention are currency when trying to cut through decades of sex panic. Make clear announcements that cut through entrenched newspeak ( aka " sex crime worsr crime" * read all about it* and "children are innocent", " what about the children?").
I always appreciate the breadth & depth of your vocabulary, but the content and analysis sometimes get lost. Allow them to play star roles without the razzle, dazzle of the grammar. Maybe just take off one piece as you hit upload MT? Lol tbf sometimes I can't even type so you know take what you will.
Don't change Michael. I love the excessive vocabulary. The writing is even better for anyone who has listened to you on a podcast. Although you don't like them, podcasts are perfect for your long-winded analysis. Reading your work is so much more fun because I can hear you saying everything.
OK, I'll make an exception to my anti-podcast crusade.
Miss Noble did indeed 'traffic' herself as did, apparently, the 'woman' in Ohio that was willing to have oral and vaginal sex with lonely Mr. George. It gets a bit more fuzzy with Epstein and Maxwell because they would recruit these women/girls and throw 'parties' in which these girls would meet up with people like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew et al and Epstein would video tape it. Epstein would reward the girls with money or jewelry and Epstein received valuable information in return. I believe Prince Andrew's legal troubles surround the leaked information, not the sex.
So, yes, there's a big, big difference between poor Harvey and Epstein. The law was weaponized against Harvey and I am sure there's a very interesting story as to why Harvey and why then.
Yes Mr Windsor’s sex troubles were civil matters, settled privately.
Who could be against legislation fighting slavery and exploitation?
I can think of one fat moron mouth breather who mocks such things by eating pizza on his podcast. Every legitimate associate you’ve ever collaborated with has dropped you like a fat bloviating filibustering hot rock.
"bro really read 3000 words on government overreach and his only two brain cells rubbed together to say 'durr u eat pizza so u pro slavery'. literal room temp iq on full display. nobody is defending real slavery u absolute clown shoe, the article just proved the feds hijacked the word to lock dudes up over bad tinder dates and 100 bucks. skipping straight to fat jokes cuz ur reading comprehension peaked in 3rd grade and u got zero actual counter arguments. deeply embarrassing for u honestly. log off."
Who could be against being " kind & inclusive"? Who could be against "trans rights are human rights?". Wait hang on, you wanna put people with dicks, aka men, in female prisons? Wait... what do you mean, women have to compete in Olympics level boxing, against testosterone jacked blokes? We have to question dogma. We need to analyse the meaning & terms of legal definitions.
One reader correctly noted, that if you ask a layperson the definition of; robbery, assault, break n enter, etc you'll get a fairly coherent answer. Sex trafficking is the opposite. That's why Tracey attempts to get some construct validity to this particular crime category.
Only FOOLS don't see the overreach and the unjustified criminalization of MEN who didn't actually do the things they are being FRAMED for. You think like a menopausal w0e-MAN, believing in gossip, ZERO critical thinking skills, ZERO objectivity, ZERO research, gyn0-centric BETA/CUCK/SIMP
Every point Michael makes here is SPOT ON and shows what perilous times we live in where MEN are being hunted and branded for FAKE crimes they didn't even commit, due to ANY sexual encounter they had could be made criminal using w0e-MEN as bait trapping MEN for FAKE INVENTED crimes just to feed the sex crimes industry
I bet you are a pedophile. Convicted, claiming innocence, likely brain damaged. Probably traumatized by society’s willingness to remind you that you’re a pathetic homely little fella. Maybe instead of destroying another child’s innocence you should go fuck yourself instead.
As the liberals and Democrats loved to do for 50 years: If you are anti pedophile, it means YOU ARE THE REAL ONE BRUH!!!!!
you PEDOPHILEPHOBE with a kid in your closet!!
FALSE ACCUSER
Incoherent drivel from a serial pedophile apologist. Like lord lard ass, which would explain why you enjoy his wacky pizza grape soda antics. I log on merely to torture the evil pricks who defend his idiocy. Likely child predators and the parents of convicted predators who can’t bring themselves to accept that their little cherub grew into a monster. If you talk like you write you should probably move back to the country you came from.
Chuck Campbell is literally telling us to come search his house for CP on his hard drives
FALSE ACCUSER
FALSE ACCUSER
Can you qualify the word innocence?
How did you figure all that stuff out?