Sexual Assault Org Publishes Portraits Of Minors Who Are Victims Of Sex Trafficking?!

[anonymous]

I'm concerned about a non-profit that published portraits of minors who survived trauma along with their trauma histories. I'm wondering if I'm overreacting or if I should go ahead and express my concerns to the organization?

This purposefully-unnamed-organization tries to raise awareness and funds for their efforts to rescue people from human trafficking by having well known artists paint the portraits of children and adults who have been rescued, and then posts these portraits of these survivors on Facebook and in public spaces with descriptions very similar to... "This is Ida* who was sold into sex trafficking by their father in (city and country) at age 9 and was rescued at age 12 and the pimp was sentenced to 10 years..... *Ida is a pseudonym"

The associated portrait is a well done, beautiful, and realistic picture of a smiling "Ida," who is now 13, clearly still a child.

A child.

It does drive the point home that many victims are children and teens. They do give her a fake name. Real face and real trauma history on the walls of this traveling exhibit that moves between religious centers and coffee shops and city centers and other public spaces in the US, with a blurb about her trauma and info on how to donate to help them rescue others. And next to her portrait is about 3-4 other portraits of other children and perhaps 20 portraits that give no age, but mostly of men and women likely to be over the age of 16. One of the other children was 9, another appeared to be 5, but I didn't read the blurb about them to confirm.

How is this not an invasion of privacy of these kids? Am I missing the point? Should I simply focus on the greater good being done?

I'm ok with the portraits of consenting adults.

The thing is, over 30 artists have helped do this, and numerous organizations have hung these portraits --- they are all over social media via the artists who painted them --- and no one seems to have hesitated and thought, "hey, in the US (my country) we don't publish the photos of US children who are rape trauma survivors, maybe we should not post the realistic portraits of children from other nations in this way either... not even in the name of raising awareness and money. Let's just stick to the consenting adults!"

Am I being too senstive or too judgmental? I'm not sure why this is getting to me.

I did contact the person who invited the exhibit to my city and asked if they could help me understand why children's faces were displayed in this exhibit, when most groups who are involved with human trafficking avoid doing that. They migh show hands or feet but not identifying details of the specific child.

The entire response was to tell me the name of the exhibit (duh) and to say they are all "courageous consenting survivors." That was it.

I replied back.
"9. year. olds. can't. consent."

I realize that is usually applies to consenting to sex, but I think it also applies to having heir portraits done and pusblished with their trauma histories all over another country. All these kids in the art exhibit are essentially orphans now, without healthy parents, but with plenty of adults involved who mean well and could have said let's not publish their faces. They are still kids.

Am I overreacting?

 

[Deleted member 37474]

I agree with you! Imagine if you were 13 and your friends saw your portrait on the wall. Some sexual abuse victims are open about it (my best friend in high school was), but plenty aren't. There has got to be other ways to support, honor and create awareness.

 

[scout86]

I don't see a problem with you contacting the group and expressing your concerns. Seems like it might be a very good idea.

I can see possible scenarios where I think what they're doing would be fine. I think, even though minors can't legally consent, there are times and situations where, if they are mature, and aware of the situation, and their safety and well being is being respected, that they could be allowed to consent to being part of a project like this and their willingness to consent could safely be respected. But I'd want to have a better idea of what the process is than what these folks seem to have shared. If this is being done 'right', then they shouldn't mind being questioned, they should actually appreciate that someone is thinking about the welfare of the kids. It might also give them a heads up that they need to do a better job of explaining their process.

 

[NoWhereKnowWhere]

I totally agree with you it doesn't sit right with me and in the uk
They use actors for children survivors and are very forthright in explaining that they are actors.

I agree it feels exploitative them using these survivors to further their cause. If they are adults and consenting that's one thing but I agree useing children isn't ok.

 

[Abigail7]

I know there's a word to describe this, I mean my reaction is that it's a form of "my culture is superior to your culture" and as such we can't do this to American kids but we can do this to foreign kids....especially foreign kids who are not white. Just reflecting, but none of the articles or movies I've seen in the past about sex trafficking have focused on white children. They have all been non-white children from outside the US, usually in an Asian country. Maybe it's easier to swallow if it's a "not us, but them" sort of topic? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Kintsugi]

THANK YOU, Abagail. I got into a confrontation about that very topic recently. There's a lot wrong here, but the stark otherization of another culture to the ends of asserting moral superiority to which one's culture has no claim is another level of wtf.

 

[Sideways]

This is one of those situations where the ethics are complex.

Here in Aus, there's a whole host of situations where the media can't publish a child's identity of a child, and even government departments aren't free to communicate, so much so that it was only recently that a fostered child's identity could not be published for an Amber alert and she was later found murdered. That gives some sort of insigt into how seriously we take this issue when the kids are 'our own'.

Where the children are from impoverished countries and the purpose of publication is charitable, the pendulum swings in the far opposite direction. Fostering a child, and being given not just the child's picture but the ability to get involved in the child's life, has been around for decades. But as those fostering programs move into communities where the charity's advertising openly makes claims like: "Sasha is set to be married before she's even 10 years old", again the purpose is charitable, but is it ethical? Sex-trafficked children are more vulnerable still, and the ethical issues perhaps become more obvious because that child's image could well have been used for black market porn trading. The question of whether the charity is guilty of a similar 'exploitation' in that situation should be more apparent. We should be even more wary of exploiting that child, and their image and identity, albeit for charitable purposes, all over again.

Then there's the consent issue. Consent would usually come from the parents, but are the parents (a) giving free consent or is it coerced if possible financial aid is being offered; and (b) are there even responsible legal guardians available, particularly if the child was a victim of sex trafficking? Have the children in these particular portraits been reunited with loving, attentive, responsible guardians? And have those guardians consented? Should they be allowed to consent to something that could have serious implications for that child moving forward? Do we deny them consent and thereby limit freedoms that other parents have? If money has been offered, where do we stand then?

What is in the best interests of the child? Some survivors would argue that any victim should be free to go public with their personal story and identity if that's what they want to do. Do children have this right? What about the 9 year old who can't legally consent to anything (including going public with their own story)? We deny children the legal right to consent to things as a protective mechanism - where do we draw the line between protection and freedom to consent?

The ethics are complicated. Certainly the charitable causes would argue that it's precisely putting a human face to the suffer that raises public interest (and ergo awareness) in the cause. And sex trafficking victims should be allowed to go public to raise awareness and support if that's what they want.

But I'm concerned that our 'good intentions' are ignoring the equally valid ethical issues of protecting the identity of vulnerable children, particularly vulnerable children with this type of abuse history. Like I said at the start, the lengths we go to to protect 'our own' children is extreme.

At the same time, I'm not completely sure if extreme protections may, like the charities would argue, prevent victims from raising both public awareness and much needed financial aid - protection of childrens' identities isn't intended to silence victims, or prevent them getting the help they need.

Certainly I think that communicating with the organisation responsible, and asking them to elaborate on what 'courageous consent' actually means is a great idea. Victims of sex-trafficking have been exploited enough, and we certainly should be requiring the highest ethical standards from organisations involved with them, even if the purpose is well-intended.

 

[scout86]

"my culture is superior to your culture" and as such we can't do this to American kids but we can do this to foreign kids....especially foreign kids who are not white.

For what ever it's worth, I had actually made the assumption that the people whose cases were featured were American. Because trafficking happens here too and it seems like it would be worth making the point that it's a problem everywhere, not just 'some place else.'


OP, if you do contact them, would you let us know what kind of response you get?

 

[Anarchy]

I'm uneasy about this too.

On top of the issues already raised, the justifications of "raising awareness" and "charitable" are not always good. Sometimes they're totally cynical.

I used to stop over in the big hotels in Nairobi, flying in and out of East Africa for work.

The conference suites were always full, with World food program this, UN that, conferences. The best that I could make of them was, the"delegates" had a day off slide shows in Nairobi, then were off on field trips to "projects" that were sited conveniently close to game parks. Of course they then spent the nights at the lodges in the game parks.
There was a whole feckin industry of expenses paid safaris under the pretext of charity and aid

As for the actual aid end of it, one area I did a lot of work in, there had been several droughts (it's droughty there again now). But there had been excellent harvests the time I was there.

Dispite excellent harvests, food aid was still being doled out at fammine rates, ensuring that anyone who had been stupid enough to grow crops, wouldn't have any market for them. The local guys who I was working with (graduate engineers, lawyers etc) were raging about it.

Sorry for long illustrations
There are good charities out there, but others are much less so, and some are totally cynical.

As a rough rule of thumb, the more extreme the means used, the more likely we're looking at a cynical manipulator, rather than a bone fide charity.

 

[anonymous]

OP here.

I really appreciate all the feedback and thoughts. It's helping me process this through.

When I first walked into the exhibit, before I knew what is was about, I was a bit uncomfortable. I was at the grand opening of a new addition to a building, and I was there to hear someone give a talk. I didn't know there would be any art exhibit. About 80 percent (or more) of the people there were white Americans. Normal for this particular city. Up on the walls were the portraits of people who all had brown skin, clearly living in poverty in a developing nation.

To the credit of the organization, the portraits are very beautifully done. They are amazing works of art. Realistic, but clearly done with care and passion. Even joyful.

I figured it was a fundraiser for hunger or micro-loans or something like that. Or maybe just an artist in town. It was weird to see it as people milled about enjoying refreshments. Most didn't seem to even take a second look at the portraits. They just chatted happily with each other and ate desserts.

When I realized it was sex trafficking victims on the walls around us, the room spun for a moment and I'm still trying to process it. It was a room full of mostly white Americans surrounded by brown skinned trauma victims.

Almost all people in the room were all smiling. The portraits were mostly of smiling people - the goal being to show people how great freedom feels. The kids portraits were more sad and artistically dark. But still smiling.

Next to each painting was a blurb about their trauma next to smiling faces. I mean, I get the point... but it was many layers of weird.

After the speaker talked, and mentioned what the portraits were about, more people stopped and noticed the portraits. One woman, a friend, broke down crying and I brought her tissues. She said she felt foolish for crying. I told her I was more worried about those not moved to tears. "It's ok to cry. This is a very sad problem."

I have confirmed the kids are street kids and orphans in a developing nation.

I am quite concerned they did not display portraits of American children or any white victims in foster care that are survivors of human trafficking from our own state, but they did display brown kids, foreigners, from that nation over there... i don't think they should have had any portraits at all, but if they are going to release the images of survivors, well why didn't they include their own country? I don't think it was intended to be about race or country, but is the result of uninformed 1st world folks trying to do something good and missing the mark. Not understanding why we don't do this to our own children.

The American children who are sex trafficking victims in my state are being cared for by an organization desperate for funding to keep their doors open... but they have the "luxury" of legal guardians who would have to sign off on such portraits and legal protections to keep a non-profit from consenting on behalf of the kids in order to raise money for the non-profit. These orphans abroad don't have that protection. I don't know if the kids consented, or the organization consented on their behalf.

I've reached out to the art director for the exhibit, the non-profit that funded this, and the organization that cares for the children abroad. I'm hoping the conversations will be a chance to better understand what they are thinking and why they are doing something so many other organizations go to great lengths to avoid.

I'm trying to accept that I probably won't agree, but before I try to build a bridge to my viewpoint, I've got to try to understand theirs. Maybe there is something I'm missing. I'll let you all know how it goes.

 

[Kintsugi]

I've been intensely ostracized in one of my classes because we were talking about human trafficking in Asia. We watched a video designed to raise awareness about trading girls as bonded servants (slaves). My classmates all began chattering about how their culture is just so hard to infiltrate with our Western values. I get people not wanting to disrespect cultural differences, but I was like, "Uh, my parents tried to sell me. They sold my sister. A baby was on the news last week for being put up for sale on Craigslist. Let's not pretend their culture is the issue here." Yep. And now no one will talk to me, because I was critical of this practice where we assume a moral high ground when it comes to human rights violations abroad. It's an extremely touchy subject.

When it comes to actually displaying those children in a gallery? For the oh-so righteous ends of creating awareness in White People with Money to Donate? That is so f*cking wrong. Way to subvert the kids' agency yet again for your noble crusade...

 

[Anarchy]

Multi Like @Simply Simon

WTF are they smoking? Can slavery not be criticised because of the colour of the person criticising's hide? Is slavery ok because: vulture? Or ok because STFU: due to your racial collective privilege, regardless of whether you've ever seen any of that collective privilege in your individual existence?

Or because logic must end where their feelings begin:rolleyes:

:hug: well done, it looks like pissing them off is a sign of critical thinking and a thoroughly decent conscience.