Olivia Bridges 

SMPA 6270: Media and War 

May 3, 2021 

Abstract: The U.S. military unquestionably has a history with prostitution and sex work; however, that history is nearly invisible to the American public. It is the job of the news media to uncover and report on the intricate relationship between war and sex work. Yet, such coverage challenges American cultural norms, so the media opts to either ignore the issue or frame it in such a way that satiates America’s perception of itself. This paper is divided into three main sections and a conclusion. The first section operationalizes the term “sex work” and explains why conflating sex work with trafficking and sexual assault is problematic. It is crucial to clarify why conflation is harmful to the sex industry because media coverage frames sex work as intertwined with trafficking and sexual assault. The second section is intended to provide a comprehensive background of the U.S. military’s history with sex work and discuss its current policies. There is an abundance of evidence that suggests military prostitution occurs both in and outside the U.S. Lastly, the third section qualitatively analyzes the framing in twelve media articles about sex work and the military. The first two sections purposefully build upon each other to contextualize the third section.

America has a culture of stigmatizing sex; the stigma extends to prostitution and sex work. As such, the media has adopted an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to the coverage of sex work issues. When sex work does reach the national stage — similar to war coverage — it is sensationalized. The media does not report on the actualities of war. Oftentimes, the media is uncritical of U.S. military foreign policy decisions (O’Brien 1990; Lerum and Brents 2016). The media is especially uncritical regarding issues that intersect with sex work and war, including the military’s relationship with prostitution. Articles about military members — war heroes — who solicit prostitutes are not culturally congruent. That is, it is not a story that aligns with American culture. The public, political elite and media do not want the truth of war to be reported on; thus, it primarily goes unreported. When the media does report on sex work concerning the U.S. military, two frames — “not us, them” and the “victim” frame— are weaved into the articles (Jackson 2016; Lecture Feb. 10, 2021). Current media framing of the U.S military’s solicitation of sex workers conflates sex work with sexual assault and human trafficking; further, the coverage of the military relinquishes journalistic objectivity in favor of culturally congruent frames —exemplifying American ethnocentrism and perceptions of the “other.” 

Defining Sex Work 

To adequately understand the media’s framing of sex work, the term “sex work” needs to be operationalized. The term “sex work” was first coined by Carol Leigh when the movement emerged in the 1970s. Leigh’s redefining of prostitution and other forms of sexual labor as sex work is widely embraced as an inclusive umbrella term that “removes the class divide between a ‘prostitute’ and a ‘massage worker (Jeffreys 2015, 4).’” Classism, like sexism, is deeply enthralled in contemporary societal norms regarding sex work. The different types of sex work are oftentimes viewed as hierarchical. The issues regarding the industry need be acknowledged through economic and sociological means. By classifying of all individuals in the sex industry as sex workers, such issues can be addressed because the term “sex work” dismantles the hierarchical boundaries. In Leigh’s explanation of the term, she claims that “The word ‘prostitute’ was tarnished, to say the least. In fact, ‘prostitute’ is another euphemism… The concept of sex work unites women in the industry – prostitutes, porn actresses, and dancers – who are enjoined by both legal and social needs (Leigh 1997, 229-230).” 

Contextually, sex work can also refer to “intimate labor” or “intimate work” due to the physical and emotional closeness associated with the work. Notably, domestic work holds these same qualities, which is why the focus on the work aspect of sex work is vital to the movement (D’Adamo 2015). Domestic workers are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act — meaning they must be receive Federal minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked over a 40-hour workweek — conversely, sex worker’s economic rights remain unprotected. Hence, the need to define sex work as it relates to work itself (U.S. Dept. of Labor 2013).  

While Leigh may have coined the term “sex work,” many organizations and academic institutes have developed their own interpretations of the term. According to the Global Network of Sex Work Projects Promoting Health and Resources, the redefining is not intended to classify women socially or psychologically, but to clarify sex work “as an income-generating activity or form of employment for women and men. As such it can be considered along with other forms of economic activity (NSWP 2020).” The Open Society Foundation also highlights the work aspect of sex work. The foundation claims that the term sex work recognizes that “sex work is work.” A saying that is widely used within the sex industry. The foundation defines “sex workers” as workers who sell sexual services — “a consensual transaction between adults, where the act of selling or buying sexual services is not a violation of human rights (Open Society Foundation 2019).” This definition is intended to clarify the distinction between sex work and human trafficking. The Open Society Foundation also condemns the use of the term prostitution because the term can be stigmatizing and deeming, whist excluding sex workers from health, legal and social services (Open Society Foundation 2019). 

Although organizations like the Open Society Foundation denounce the use of the word prostitution, the Red Umbrella organization notes that the use of prostitution/prostitute as an identifier is a personal choice. Moreover, there are various uses of the term that are relevant in certain contexts. For example, prostitution is a term habitually used in legislation; it can also refer to sex work that involves intercourse with clients. However, similar to the foundation, the Red Umbrella recognizes the negative conations of the term. Additionally, the Red Umbrella defines sex work as “a deliberate attempt to unite sex workers of all genders and sectors of work and to highlight the work, or labor, that sex workers are doing. The term sex work is liberation from the deep-rooted negative and legalistic term prostitute (Bruckert 2013; Reference Bruckert for a list of terminologies and definitions regarding sex work).” 

For purposes of this paper, the term sex work and prostitution will be used interchangeably; although, as established, it is important to be socially cognizant of the negative associations with the term prostitution/prostitute. Additionally, the term military prostitution or military sex work specifically refers to sex work and sex workers concerning the U.S. military. 

Sex Work vs. Sexual Assault and Human Trafficking 

In defining sex work, it is vital to distinguish the difference between sex work, sexual assault and human trafficking. The media and the political elite tend to conflate sex work with sexual assault and human trafficking. This conflation is problematic because the assumption prompts anti-prostitution activists to equate prostitution or sex work with sex trafficking. U.S. anti-sex work policies emerge from feminist anxieties about male sexual exploitation, as well as conventional religious beliefs and “sex panic.” According to Lerum and Brents, terminology such as “sex trafficking” and “sex slavery” are sensationalistic discursive tools that shift the focus onto the product of sex rather than sex workers themselves. The language in media coverage of sex work reflects the Americanized “sex panic” through its use of the aforementioned terminology: “sex trafficking: and “sex slavery” (Lerum and Brents 2016). While the media has minimal persuasive power, it does have the ability to reaffirm prior believes. The reigning assumption regarding sex work is it is immoral and a tool to objectify women. When the media conflates sex work with sex trafficking or sex slavery, it reaffirms the public’s prejudice that lends support for the criminalization of sex work (Lecture March 8, 2021). Instead, the media and political elite should attempt to humanize the sex industry through language such as “trafficking in the sex industry” or “forced sexual labor” to divorce sex work from human trafficking and sexual assault (Lerum and Brents 2016). 

As a consequence of merging sex work with carceral feminist and anti-prostitution ideals, a culture of punishment and rescue has emerged (see Terwiel, 2019, for more on carceral feminism). Policies and frames that promote punishment and rescue augments the systematic problems within the sex industry. Through this culture, stigmas of the sex industry and “sex panic” thrive, which is troublesome because “sex panic (Herdgt 2009) around “sex trafficking” rebrands various social problems connected to poverty, migration, and labor rights as individual moral problems (or national security concerns) and expands the criminal justice system to increase monitoring and control of the marginalized population (Lerum and Brents 2016, 19-20; Jackson 2016, 28).” Crimination of sex work is a social justice issue (Jackson 2019; Jackson 2016). In the U.S—except for Nevada—prostitution is illegal. Studies indicate that any form of crimination in the sex industry is harmful and can lead to an increase in violence and STD infection rates (Lerum and Brents 2016, 24). The Open Society Foundation claims that “sex work is not inherently harmful, but criminalization and stigma do make sex work circumstantially harmful (Open Society Foundation).” When the media — and political elite for that matter — conflate sex work with sexual assault and human trafficking they contribute to an environment that tolerates violence against sex workers (Beelen and Aliya Rakhmetova 2010). 

In actuality, sex trafficking only contributes to a quarter of human trafficking, yet 92 percent of all trafficking convictions by the U.S. State department in 2013 were confined to the sex industry (Lerum and Brents 2016, 19). Moreover, despite popular assumptions that the sex industry exploits underage workers, a study found that younger workers are less likely to have a regular pimp — or rather a third party, which is the more socially acceptable term due to the racialized aspects of the word pimp — and are less profitable (Lerum and Brents 2016; Bruckert 2013). However, despite these empirical facts, media coverage frames sex work and forced sexual labor as synonymous. The media also represents prostitution as a form of violence against women (Jackson 2016, 27). 

U.S. Military’s Invisible History with Sex Work 

 Where there is war, there is sex work. The U.S. military and the sex industry have a codependent relationship. While entertainment media may sensationalize sex in movies and TV shows, in general, the U.S. has a very prudish relationship with sex. The military’s history with prostitution is not a story that is culturally congruent with the American public (Lecture Feb. 10, 2021). If the media were to publish claims about military prostitution, it would risk accusations of being anti-war. Thus, the military’s history with sex work is largely unreported and unacknowledged in media, academia and political spheres (Lecture Feb. 3, 2021). 

Despite subpar coverage of military sex work, there is a quote-on-quote, “paper-trail.” During the Civil War, Nashville was transformed into the Union’s designated red-light district. Nashville even briefly legalized sex work. Smokey Row housed roughly 1,500 prostitutes and became an experiment for regulated prostitution. Initially, Smokey Row harbored venereal diseases like gonorrhea and syphilis with one in eleven soldiers contracting a sexually transmitted disease. However, in August of 1863, Union provost marshal, George Spalding, instituted a hospital specifically to address the health needs of sex workers. Notably, the hospital came at no cost to the general public, “To pay for it, prostitutes had to register for a license to practice their trade…. The prostitutes were required to submit to regular health inspections and enter the hospital if they contracted a disease (Blakemore 2019).” STD rates dropped and hundreds of sex workers registered for licenses. While the program was a success, Nashville was a short-lived experiment (Blakemore 2019).  

Prostitution is undoubtedly a part of the U.S. military’s secret history. Aside from the Civil War, there is evidence that military sex work had a role in every major military conflict, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prostitution was even commonplace during WWII, which does not align with the morally just version of the war that Americans envision. According to Clemmitt, when WWII ended in 1945, prostitution began to flourish near military bases (Clemmitt 2008; Al-Othman 2018).  

Interestingly, most accounts of the military sex work are dated between the 1960s and 1980s, during the Vietnam and Korean war. Clemmitt notes that U.S. troops contracted sexually transmitted diseases in Vietnam, which intersects with an increase prostitution stigmatization due to the HIV/AIDs epidemic. In 1969, Brig. Gen. David Thomas, a top medical officer in Vietnam, recommended that the U.S. military run brothels; however, no action was taken. At least not officially (Clemmitt 2008). According to Vine, in South Korea, 1965, a survey found that 85 percent of U.S. airmen respondents reported having an interaction with a sex worker. Four years prior, Korean officials legally recognized “special districts” that were exclusive to U.S. troops. Within those districts, the American military police were permitted to arrest sex workers who did not have their health inspection cards. This suggests the U.S. military and government did — and may still have — a function in military prostitution (Vine 2015; Vine 2017). 

Prostitution near military bases is not exclusive to locations outside the U.S. There are current accounts of commercial sex zones that are in tandem with U.S. bases around the world, including Fort Bragg in North Carolina. However, the fact remains, reports of sex work within American borders at military bases are essentially non-existent (Vine 2015).  

Sex Work Policy and the Military 

 The U.S. military and U.S. military policies adhere to the popularized American ideology that criminalizes sex work. U.S. policy conflates sex work with sexual assault and trafficking in the sex industry. Military officials who do discuss military sex work, frame sex work as a consequence of forced sexual labor and sexual assault. For example, in 2014, U.S. commander, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, discussed a practice referred to as “buying a day off.” According to Scaparrotti, service members would buy an overpriced drink as a front to pay sex workers for their services. Rather than addressing the systematic economic injustices in the sex industry, Scaparrotti conflates sex work with forced sexual labor: “The governments of the Republic of Korea, the United States, and the Republic of the Philippines have linked these practices with prostitution and human trafficking (Lamothe 2014).” As previously stated, this framing of sex work is problematic. Scaparrotti is not alone in his sentiment. Legislation, such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Violence Against Women Act, also intertwine trafficking in the sex industry and sexual assault with sex work (H.R. 3244; H.R. 1585).  

Military policy regarding the legality of prostitution near military bases is also problematic. In 1917, the Draft Act outlawed prostitution near military bases, which resulted in the closing of red-light districts. The crimination of prostitution only worsens the economic and societal hardships of those working in the sex industry (Clemmitt 2008). Under section 920c, article 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, forcible pandering is considered illegal and punishable by court-marshal regardless of the legality of prostitution in the country of deployment. As of 2019, forcible pandering is defined as “Any person subject to this chapter who compels another person to engage in an act of prostitution with any person (Uniform Code of Military Justice 2019).” Prostitution was not always banned for military members. Former President Bush implemented the provision in 2006 as part of his efforts to combat human trafficking or forced sexual labor. Bush’s ban is another example of the political elite conflating sex work with trafficking in the sex industry (Knickerbocker 2012). America’s anti-sex bias is evident in legislation about the perimeters of acceptable military conduct. Conventional wisdom in media effects research indicates that the media takes cues from the political elite. The pitfalls of the political elite regarding military sex work transfers over to media coverage and media framing (Aday 2019). 

Media Coverage and Framing 

Sex and sex work stigmas are embedded in American policy and culture; such stigmas are reflected in media coverage of the military’s relationship with sex work. The anti-prostitution movement stems from racism, anti-Semitism and misguided understandings of sexism. However, the racist and anti-Semitic aspects of the movement are particularly evident. In 1909, McClure’s magazine published a fabricated “story about Jewish immigrants in the Northeastern United States who lured white American farm girls into brothels with the covert cooperation of city political machines (Clemmitt 2008).” The article was published during a time of rapid urbanization and immigration. It tapped into the burgeoning xenophobia and “sex panic” in America, which has seemingly carried over into current media coverage of sex work (Clemmitt 2008).  

There is an abundance of evidence indicating that a substantial number of military members have a relationship with sex work, yet when reporting on war, the media pretends that such evidence does not exist. That is not to say there is zero coverage of the issue. There are a few lone articles worth discussing. The majority of articles about the U.S. military prostitution frames the issue in two ways: the ‘not us, them’ frame and the “victim” frame. Both frames are culturally congruent with America’s idealized version of the military and “sex panic” (Jackson 2016; Lerum and Brents 2016; Lecture Feb. 10, 2021). 

The following inferences hinge on qualitative research from a sample size of twelve media articles about military prostitution. Those articles were found through a google search with the keywords: “prostitution in U.S. military.” It is important to note that while the sample size is small — due to a lack of media coverage — the pattern is nonetheless situationally significant as the frames are dominant in nearly every article (reference the appendix for the full list of articles and framing examples). 

The “Not Us, Them” Frame 

Media coverage of the U.S. military’s history and current relationship with sex work, frames the issue in such a way that distances America from the alleged immorality of sex work. The “not us, them” frame is derived from America’s xenophobia and exceptionalism. In terms of foreign policy, the U.S. prides itself as the model student for the rest of the world. The media caters to American’s glorified and just version of war, in which the U.S. military is the epitome of morality: young men and women who are risking their lives for the sake of the country. Military prostitution does not compute with America’s knight in shining armor syndrome; sexual impulsivity is not a traditional quality of a hero. It is more culturally congruent to report on military prostitution outside of the U.S. and Western Europe. The media’s coverage draws a clear line that differences us — America and Europe — from them — the “other” (Lecture Feb. 10, 2021). 

Of the twelve articles, only three diverted away from the “not us, them” frame.  

  • “More Than a Dozen Fort Hood Soldiers Arrested in Prostitution Sting”: The article is about thirteen Fort Hood soldiers, located in Texas, who are facing charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military prostitution. The suspects responded to online sexual commerce advertisements. The advertisements were part of an undercover sting by the Special Crimes Unit (Dickstein 2017). 
  • “These Are The Forgotten Sex Workers Of The First World War Who Played An Important Role In Soldiers’ Lives”: The article is about the women who worked as sex workers in northern France during World War I. The article attempts to tell a “true war story.” Specifically, the Al-Othman writes about how soilures would pay more to visit sex workers who might infect them with gonorrhea or syphilis because treatment required a 30-day hospital stay. Unlike the “not us, them” frame, the article does not attempt to conceal the extent of the U.S. government’s role in military sex work. According to the article, the American Expeditionary Forces had a role in military prostitution as the forces “placed brothels out of bounds for soldiers and disinfection was compulsory within three hours of contact. If a man disregarded this procedure and subsequently developed venereal disease, he could be tried for neglect of duty (Al-Othman 2018).” 
  • “America Flirted with Legalized Prostitution During the Civil War”: The article is about legalized prostitution in Nashville during the Civil War (Reference “U.S. Military’s Invisible History with Sex Work” section; Blakemore 2019). 

Dickstein, Al-Othman and Blakemore’s articles do not subscribe to America’s vision of what war should look like. Rather they try to push beyond the xenophobia and national pride to report on the news. Military prostitution is not executive to non-American countries; however, the remaining nine articles do frame the issue through that trope. Of those nine articles, if military sex work in America is included, it is only mentioned in passing. For example, Vine wrote, “Today, commercial sex zones thrive in tandem with many U.S. bases around the world, from Baumholder in Germany to Fort Bragg in North Carolina (Vine 2015).” While Vine did mention Fort Bragg, the article quickly switches back to prostitution in South Korea. Such coverage is a disservice to the sex industry because the ten articles reaffirm xenophobic, sex attitudes (Al-Othman 2018; Dickstein 2017). 

Six of the articles cover the issue of military prostitution in South Korea. The coverage has undertones of racism. For example, Shorrock’s article is titled “Welcome to the Monkey House.” America has a history of using animalistic descriptors to attack minority groups. The description portrays South Korean military prostitutes as less than human, likened to a monkey with no regard for societal-sex etiquette. It is plausible that by portraying Asian sex workers as subhuman, military prostitution is therefore also subhuman, an anomaly exclusive to Asian culture. By that logic, Americans, conversely, are not animalistic and thus, have appropriate boundaries regarding sex (Shorrock 2019; Lecture March 31, 2021). 

All six articles strategically establish boundaries between America and military sex work. Aside from racism, the articles also weaponize just war theory. The Korean War is an ugly-stepsister war compared to WWI and WWII; it does not neatly fit into the description of a just war, according to American ideals. While America did not lose the war, the public, political elite and media quickly turned on the war (Lecture Feb. 3, 2021; Walzer). The elite descensus regarding the justifiability of the war signaled to the media that it is acceptable to criticize American involvement in South Korea, which remains the norm for media coverage (Aday 2019; Bennett et al.).  

The remaining three articles further exemplify how the media attempts to separate the U.S. from military prostitution. Ziezulewicz’s article covers military prostitution and forced sexual labor in Bahrain (Ziezulewicz 2020). Additionally, both Knickerbocker and Zakaria’s articles are about the involvement of Secret Service members with sex workers in Cartagena, Colombia, during the Obama administration. Unlike the U.S., prostitution is legal in Cartagena (Knickerbocker 2012; Zakaria and Cornwell 2012). Notably, Knickerbocker writes that prostitution is outlawed in the military regardless of legality. Doing so clearly feeds into the “not us, them” frame by highlighting the different legal systems. Colombia permits prostitution, the U.S. does not. Simply put, Knickerbocker is essentially saying military sex work is only a problem in Colombia because it is not criminalized like in the U.S (Knickerbocker 2012). The same accusatory tone is evident in all nine articles. The frame confirms the public’s belief that America has the moral high ground compared to South Korea, Bahrain and Colombia because there are negligible media reports of military sex work in America and European countries.  

The “Victim” Frame 

The second persistent media frame conflates sex work with sexual assault and trafficking. The media habitually reports on the more sensationalized aspects of the sex industry (Ditmore). Sensationalistic language such as “sex slave” and “human trafficking” are weaved throughout the majority of the twelve articles. Only Al-Othman, Evans and Blakemore’s articles do not incorporate the “victim” frame (Al-Othman 2018; Evans 2014; Blakemore 2019). The remaining nine conflate sex work with trafficking in the sex industry and sexual assault. Take, for example, Lamothe’s article on the group of women suing the South Korean government because of the government’s role in military sex work. Lamothe connects the suit to the U.S. Pentagon’s attempt to addresses sexual assault. While the two issues can be interrelated, sex work does not equate to sexual assault. When Lamothe and the other journalists connect sex work to sexual assault or trafficking, they frame — and objectify —the workers as victims, rather than people (Lamothe 2014; Jackson 2016). 

According to Jackson, anti-prostitution or “victim” frames are engrained in societal institutions, ranging from criminal justice to family dynamics. Those societal institutions also extend to the media, “media and policy-making bodies largely frame prostitution in terms of concerns about sex trafficking (Jackson 2016, 30).” The framing of trafficking in the sex industry as “sex slavery” in the nine articles about military prostitution censors those in the sex industry. Jackson argues that the victim frame — that is, the framing of sexual labor in terms of violence — has negative consequences on the basic autonomy of sex workers. The media’s habit of conflation inhibits the agency of sex work advocates to promote a frame that emphasizes rights and not victimhood (Jackson 2016).  

Moving Forward: A Call for Inclusivity and Objectivity 

Current media coverage shuns objectivity and instead portrays the U.S. military as moral — per American societal norms. The culturally congruent “not us, them” and “victim” frames do not adequately cover the complexities of military sex work. Moving forward, the media should readjust their coverage to reflect the “rights-based” frame that sex worker advocates promote. Rather than conflating the sex industry with trafficking and sexual assault, the media should address the politics of migration, work, poverty and other social issues. Following guidelines of the “rights-based” frame, the media would frame trafficking in the sex industry as a fight for migrant rights, instead of a fight against trafficking. In the case of military prostitution in South Korea, journalists should trade in their culturally congruent frame for a frame that focuses on systematic issues like poverty and gender inequality. Sex workers do not need protection from sex work, they need protection from institutional forces. Portraying sex workers, including military sex workers, as victims does nothing other than feed into a culture of rescue and release (Jackson 2016). Additionally, portraying military sex work as an issue that only happens outside the borders of the U.S. is a disservice to the public. The media needs to increase its coverage of military prostitution within American borders, so that it will become an issue more heuristically available. While the media and public may have no sway over the decisions of the political elite, it is the job of the media to be critical and objective. Further, the media does have the ability to increase the public’s perception of the importance of a given issue. A minimal impact on the public and political elite’s perception of military sex work is still better than no impact at all (Lecture Feb. 17, 2021). 

Appendix 

  1. The Washington Post: “The U.S. military’s long, uncomfortable history with prostitution gets new attention” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “The world’s oldest profession has long catered to U.S. troops, whether at home or abroad. But the issue is getting new scrutiny in South Korea, where the top U.S. commander, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, recently forbid all military personnel under his command from paying an employee in an “establishment” for his or her time (Lamothe 2014).” 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “The effort comes as the Pentagon also attempts to crack down on another problem: sexual assault. Defense officials said in May that they recorded thousands of reports of sexual assault last year and that the problem is much more widespread than commanders had realized (Lamothe 2014).” 
  1. Salon: “Women’s labor, sex work and U.S. military bases abroad” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “Domestic bases like Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have also given rise to redlight districts nearby. But the problems associated with the sex trade are particularly pronounced overseas — especially in South Korea, where “camptowns” that surround U.S. bases have become deeply entrenched in the country’s economy, politics, and culture (Vine 2017).” 
  • Note: The article touches on the domestic side of military sex work, but quickly switches to South Korea and clarifies that the issue is worse abroad. 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “In 2002, a Cleveland television station exposed how military police officers were protecting the bars and the GIs in them, and interacting with women they knew had been trafficked and sold at auction (Vine 2017).” 
  1. New Republic: “Welcome to the Monkey House” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “Locals call it the Monkey House. The decaying, three-story cement fortress sits among weeds in the wooded, hilly outskirts of Dongducheon, a Korean city of 96,000 that encircles Camp Casey, the closest U.S. military base to North Korea and home to key elements of the U.S. Army’s 2nd Infantry Division (Shorrock 2019). 
  • Note: Monkey house portrays the South Korean military as subhuman and animalistic—racist undertones. 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “The Monkey House was a virtual prison for sex workers (Shorrock 2019).” 
  1. The New York Times: “Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “SEOUL, South Korea has railed for years against the Japanese government’s waffling over how much responsibility it bears for one of the ugliest chapters in its wartime history: the enslavement of women from Korea and elsewhere to work in brothels serving Japan’s imperial army (Sang-Hun 2009). 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “They also accuse past South Korean governments, and the United States military, of taking a direct hand in the sex trade from the 1960s through the 1980s, working together to build a testing and treatment system to ensure that prostitutes were disease-free for American troops (Sang-Hun 2009).” 
  1. BBC News: “Did Korea encourage sex work at U.S. bases?” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “More than 120 former prostitutes who worked near a US military base in South Korea are going to court to seek compensation from the Korean government (Evans 2014).” 
  • “Rights-Based” Frame 
  • Ex: “Their argument is not that South Korea compelled them to work as prostitutes – this is not a case of sexual slavery – but that by instituting a system of official and compulsory check-ups on their sexual health, it was complicit, and facilitated a system which now leaves them in poverty (Evans 2014).”  
  • Note: The article clarifies that military prostitution was not forced sexual labor and that the government left them in poverty due to a lack of protection of their economic rights. 
  1. Politico: “My body was not mine, but the U.S. Military’s” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “The problems associated with the sex trade are particularly pronounced in South Korea, where “camptowns” that surround U.S. bases have become deeply entrenched in the country’s economy, politics and culture (Vine 2015).”  
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “During its conquest of territory across East Asia, the Japanese military forced hundreds of thousands of women from Korea, China, Okinawa and rural Japan, and other parts of Asia into sexual slavery, providing soldiers with “royal gifts” from the emperor. With the assistance of Korean officials, U.S. authorities continued the system absent formal slavery, but under conditions of exceedingly limited choice for the women involved (Vine 2015).” 
  1. Military Times: “Tinder, Sailor, Hooker, Pimp: The U.S. Navy’s sex trafficking scandal in Bahrain” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “The first in a cascade of U.S. Navy investigations into sailors accused of trafficking, housing and pimping female prostitutes in the Middle East can be traced back to June 2017 and a string of sex-charged encrypted text messages between a sailor in Bahrain and a Thai prostitute he met on the island (Ziezulewicz 2020). 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “Allegations of brutal sexual assaults on the vulnerable woman also came to light, as did evidence of at least one sailor acting as an enforcer for local prostitutes, shaking down a shipmate for payments (Ziezulewicz 2020). 
  1. Reuters: “U.S. Military faces scrutiny over its prostitution policies” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “After the Colombia scandal broke, initial attention focused on the dozen agents from the Secret Service, a civilian agency, for fear safety of the president or other officials might have been compromised (Zakaria and Cornwell 2012).” 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “Officers and troops are taught about the links between human trafficking and prostitution. They also face country-specific instructions at bases like the U.S. installation in South Korea, where the policy describes prostitution as “cruel and demeaning (Zakaria and Cornwell 2012).” 
  1. The Christian Science Monitor: “Secret Service and U.S. military: Why prostitution can end careers” 
  • “Not us, them” Frame 
  • Ex: “It’s only quite recently that prostitution itself (and the related issue of adultery) have been specifically addressed in military law and regulation – the reason ten US service members may be in trouble now for their connection to the scandal involving US Secret Service agents and supervisors alleged to have been with prostitutes while on assignment to help protect President Obama at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, last week (Knickerbocker 2012).” 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), hiring a prostitute wasn’t specifically banned until 2006 – as part of the Bush administration’s effort to combat human trafficking, which frequently is connected to prostitution (including the involvement of underage girls) (Knickerbocker 2012).” 
  1. Military.com: “More Than a Dozen Fort Hood Soldiers Arrested in Prostitution Sting” 
  • N/A 
  • Ex: “Thirteen Fort Hood soldiers face solicitation of prostitution charges after they were arrested during a two-day sting operation in locations near the Army post in central Texas, local law enforcement and Army officials said (Dickstein 2017).” 
  • “Victim” Frame 
  • Ex: “The purpose of the operation is to crack down on sex trafficking and to identify and arrest individuals seeking sexual acts in exchange for an agreed upon fee in Bell County,” Cruz said (Dickstein 2017).”  
  1. BuzzFeed News: “These Are The Forgotten Sex Workers Of The First World War Who Played An Important Role In Soldiers’ Lives” 
  • N/A 
  • Ex: “They worked in brothels frequented by troops serving on the front line in northern France, but their role has been virtually erased from the history books (Al-Othman 2018).” 
  • “Rights-Based” Frame 
  • Ex: “‘The extent that women’s rights have moved on since the First World War, and sex workers’ rights haven’t changed that much,’ she told BuzzFeed News (Al-Othman 2018).” 
  1. History: “America Flirted with Legalized Prostitution During the Civil War” 
  • N/A 
  • Ex: “Nashville had been occupied by Union soldiers since February 1862, and served as a large garrison for soldiers from the North. They didn’t come alone. Though there were about 200 prostitutes in the city before the Civil War began, the profession flourished and grew along with the Union occupation (Blakemore 2019).” 
  • “Rights-Based” Frame 
  • Ex: “Modern research has shown that when sex work is legalized, sexually transmitted diseases fall—but over a century ago, the potential benefits of regulated sex work seemed clear even without those studies. The brief but successful experiment only lasted through the end of the Civil War. But it proved the benefits of allowing sex workers to practice their trade publicly (Blakemore 2019).” 

Works Cited 

Aday, S. (2019). “Media, War, and Foreign Policy.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Political  

Communication.  

Al-Othman, Hannah. “These Are The Forgotten Sex Workers Of The First World War Who Played An Important Role In Soldiers’ Lives.” BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed, 2 Nov. 2018, www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/forgotten-world-war-one-sex-workers.  

“APPENDIX 2 UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE … – JSC Home.” Jsc.defense.gov, 2019, jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/UCMJ%20-%2020December2019.pdf?ver=2020-01-28-083235-930.  

Beelen, Nel van, and Aliya Rakhmetova . “Research For Sex Work: Issue 12.” NSWP, Red Umbrella, 2010, Rakhmetova .  

Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston, “None Dare Call it Torture,” Journal of Communication,  

56(3), 467-485. 

Blakemore, Erin. “America Flirted with Legalized Prostitution During the Civil War.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 24 Apr. 2019, http://www.history.com/news/civil-war-prostitution-nashville.  

Bruckert et al., “Language Matters: Talking about Sex Work,” Nswp.org (Stella, April 2013),  

“Clearing Up Some Myths About Sex Work.” Open Society Foundations, 2019, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-sex-work-open-society.  

Clemmitt, Marcia. “Prostitution Debate.” CQ Researcher, 23 May 2008, pp. 433-56,  

library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2008052300.  

Dickstein, Corey. “More Than a Dozen Fort Hood Soldiers Arrested in Prostitution Sting.” Military.com, 7 Sept. 2017, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/07/more-than-dozen-fort-hood-soldiers-arrested-prostitution-sting.html.  

Evans, Stephen. “Did Korea Encourage Sex Work at US Bases?” BBC News, BBC, 28 Nov. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30212673.  

“Fact Sheet #79B: Live-in Domestic Service Workers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).” U.S. Department of Labor Seal, 2013, http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/79b-flsa-live-in-domestic-workers.  

“Global Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP) – Prostitution – ProCon.org.” Prostitution, 16 Mar. 2020, prostitution.procon.org/source-biographies/global-network-of-sex-work-projects-nswp/.  

Jackson, Crystal A. “Framing Sex Worker Rights: How U.S. Sex Worker Rights Activists Perceive  

and Respond to Mainstream Anti–Sex Trafficking Advocacy.” Sociological Perspectives, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016, pp. 27–45. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26340166. 

Jackson, Crystal A. “‘Sex Workers Unite!’: U.S. Sex Worker Support Networks in an Era of  

Criminalization.” Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3/4, 2019, pp. 169–188. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26803272. 

JEFFREYS, Elena, et al. “Research for Sex Work: Issue 15.” NSWP, Red Umbrella, 2015, http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/R4SW%202015_issue14_PDFV.pdf.  

Knickerbocker , Brad. “Secret Service and US Military: Why Prostitution Can End Careers.” The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor, 20 Apr. 2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0419/Secret-Service-and-US-military-Why-prostitution-can-end-careers.  

Lamothe, Dan. “The U.S. Military’s Long, Uncomfortable History with Prostitution Gets New Attention.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Apr. 2019, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/31/the-u-s-militarys-long-uncomfortable-history-with-prostitution-gets-new-attention/.  

Lerum, Kari, and Barbara G. Brents. “Sociological Perspectives on Sex Work and Human  

Trafficking.” Sociological Perspectives, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016, pp. 17–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26340165. 

O’Brien, T. How to Tell a True War Story. 1990, http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~cinichol/CreativeWriting/323/OBrienWarStory.pdf.  

Sang-hun, Choe. “Ex-Prostitutes Say South Korea and U.S. Enabled Sex Trade Near Bases.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/world/asia/08korea.html.  

Shorrock, Tim. “Welcome to the Monkey House.” The New Republic, 2 Dec. 2019, newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house.  

Terwiel, Anna. “What Is Carceral Feminism?” Political Theory, vol. 48, no. 4, Aug. 2020, pp.  

421–442, doi:10.1177/0090591719889946. 

United States, Congress, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. 2000. U.S. G.P.O. Congress.  

United States, Congress, Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019: 2019.  

Vine, David. ‘My Body Was Not Mine, but the US MILITARY’S’. 3 Nov. 2015, http://www.politico.eu/article/my-body-was-not-mine-but-the-u-s-militarys/.  

Vine, David. “Women’s Labor, Sex Work and U.S. Military Bases Abroad.” Salon, Salon.com, 9 Oct. 2017, http://www.salon.com/2017/10/08/womens-labor-sex-work-and-u-s-military-bases-abroad/.  

Walzer, Arguing About War, Chapters 1 and 2. 

Zakaria, Tabassum, and Susan Cornwell. “U.S. Military Faces Scrutiny over Its Prostitution Policies.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 29 Apr. 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-agents-military/u-s-military-faces-scrutiny-over-its-prostitution-policies-idUSBRE83S09620120429.  

Ziezulewicz, Geoff. “Tinder, Sailor, Hooker, Pimp: The U.S. Navy’s Sex Trafficking Scandal in Bahrain.” Military Times, Military Times, 4 Jan. 2021, http://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/16/tinder-sailor-hooker-pimp-the-us-navys-sex-trafficking-scandal-in-bahrain/.