413047-Underground-Commercial-Sex-Economy

in public venues, utilized their own social networks to connect with prospective employees, and trained
new employees regarding business practices.
Some pimps also enjoyed lucrative relationships with legal businesses. Hotel employees and managers
were known to turn a blind eye to prostitution occurring within their establishments. Car dealerships and
retail stores also provided discounts to pimps or allowed pimps to make purchases under a friend or
family member’s name to avoid detection.
Though pimps can operate without the support of additional actors, their assistance often helps pimps
expand their operations, maintain tighter control over their employees, and avoid law enforcement
detection.
Policy Implications
As recommended by Polaris Project (2010), state law should distinguish between those that use force,
fraud, or coercion to compel involvement in sex work, and those who facilitate or benefit from the
involuntary commercial sex work of another individual. Findings demonstrate that while multiple actors
help facilitate sex trafficking, their level of involvement varies greatly. In many cases, an individual actor’s
involvement may be limited to driving a sex worker to the location of a date or storing money earned
through the facilitation of sex work. The severity of the charge should correspond to the level of
involvement. Polaris Project’s Model Provisions of Comprehensive State Legislation to Combat Human
Trafficking treats human trafficking as a Class A felony and the facilitation of or benefit from human
trafficking as a Class B felony (Polaris Project 2010). At present, nine states impose lesser penalties for
facilitators than for traffickers, while 29 states and DC impose the same penalties for sex trafficking and
the facilitation of or receipt of profit from sex trafficking (Polaris Project 2013). Laws should also take into
consideration the victimization of bottoms, who often become involved in the UCSE through a pimp.
Finding 6: Different forms of coercion and fraud are used by pimps to
recruit, manage, and retain control over employees. These forms
include feigning romantic interest, emphasizing mutual dependency
between pimp and employee, discouraging women from “having sex
for free,” and promises of material comforts.
Pimps, sex workers, and law enforcement officers explained that coercion and fraud are used by pimps in
a number of different ways to control sex workers of all ages, races, genders, and socioeconomic statuses.
These methods are relatively advanced; pimps reported adjusting their recruitment methods in response
to their observations regarding the personal needs, experience, and vulnerabilities of the individuals they
intend to recruit. Using coercive tactics and fraud, pimps successfully recruited and exploited individuals
from myriad backgrounds and all socioeconomic strata.
The use of manipulation also enabled pimps to develop and preserve their control over business
operations and profits. Pimps often instigated competition between employees by maintaining romantic
and sexual relationships with many of them and then showing affection for the most profitable employees.
Recognition from the pimp thus served as a motivation for employees to engage in sex work and turn over
proceeds. In other cases, offender respondents reported that some pimps only employ one individual, who
is frequently involved in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the pimp. In such cases, pimps asked
this person to prove their love and commitment by engaging in sex work for the pimp.
Policy Implications
Given the many forms of fraud and coercion identified by sex workers, law enforcement, and offenders,
state statutes must clearly encompass acts, omissions, and threats that create a context of coercion. All
states should include fraud and coercion in their definitions of sex trafficking, and enact statutes that
invite broad interpretations of fraud and coercion that include subtle, non-physical forms used to
284