The Ethics of Using Sex to Sell Abolition

Here's something I don't have to tell you: sex is interesting. In fact, maybe you're reading this blog just because the title mentioned sex. Maybe you're reading because of the sexy picture. Sex is so interesting, that human trafficking can be a "sexy" issue, even though the sex involved is often violent and exploitative. A number of public awareness campaigns for human trafficking have capitalized on the sheer sex appeal of the issue by featuring images of attractive, often restrained women. Are these campaigns merely taking advantage of the sexily marketable nature of the abolitionist movement? Or is it unethical to use sex to sell a campaign against sex trafficking?

Monica over at $pread Blog has an interesting and highly intelligent take on this same issue with some different ads. Here are some of the sexiest human trafficking ads I've found.

This ad was originally created by the government of Luxembourg and is one of the creepier things I've ever seen. And I've watched The Ring alone in the dark. It features an attractive, topless, white woman trapped in what looks to be a vacuum-sealed meat wrapper. Sure, her boobs are blurred out, but you're obviously supposed to think about the fact that she's naked while she's caught in this creepy, evil grocery store. I get what you're going for, Luxembourg, but I'm not buying it.

Speaking of creepy, this image has something really wrong with it. Have you figured out what it is? On first glance, the woman appears to be wearing heels, but really it is just her skin, stretched into a stiletto heel shape. The message reads "Some people are very attached to their work." I'm not a huge fan of that slogan because it gives the impression trafficking victims are work-a-holics, which if you didn't know anything about trafficking, you might think was true. And once again, we're seeing what looks like a white, adult woman in what is obviously supposed to be a sexy heel. Though I must admit I find flesh shoes to be a bit of a turn off, personally.

When I first saw this Amnesty International awareness campaign, I thought it was an ad for some sort of new ankle jewelry. To me this says "human trafficking is a crime where beautiful, thin, white women with impossibly perfect and shapely legs are given delicate gold jewelry which is lovely, if impractical." She also has on great shoes. If this is trafficking, it doesn't look to bad to me. But it's not trafficking but a long shot.

One of the most noticeable similarities between all these ads is that all the women are white. If someone looking at these ads were to try and identify a trafficking victim, they would probably peg her as a thin, beautiful white woman in classy footwear.  And they would be way off.

There are plenty of anti-trafficking awareness campaigns that use images which aren't the slightest bit sexy, but these are some of the ones which straddle the line of ethics, if not cross it. The use of sex to advertise abolition is a huge issue, and one I struggle with every day on this blog. We want to attract potential abolitionists' attention with memorable, provocative images. And when the message is about exploitative sex, sexy and upsetting images are often a good fit. But there is a line between drawing attention to the problem to contributing to it. Human trafficking objectifies women's bodies completely; abolitionist campaigns shouldn't do the same. So when I have a choice to use an image of a sexy woman that I know will grab readers' attention and a more innocuous image like a sign, which one should I choose? It's a judgment call every time, but one that can significantly affect the way people understand and view trafficking victims.

Do you think any of these ads cross the line?

Top photo credit: franulloa