Counterpoint: Hold men — only men — accountable for sex trafficking

I was taken aback by the section of "Everyday reality of sex trafficking is the larger scandal" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 19) that read: "When we look at who is buying sex ... we know that perpetrators look like the population of Minnesota."

I read that sentence many times, because it seemed to be implicating men and women. That's what the population of Minnesota looks like, right? Men and women. But I thought to myself, that doesn't sound right — women are not huge buyers of sex. Men are.

The next sentence cleared that up. "[Women's Foundation of Minnesota's] 2017 report 'Mapping the Demand' shows that sex buyers are predominantly middle-aged, white, married men from across the state."

Aaaah. OK. Men are buying sex, men are creating the demand for this sex trafficking scandal.

For an essay that hoped to expose the truth about who buys sex, who is perpetrating this social scourge, the authors talked very little about that truth. Passive language hides the truth. Correcting language — using an active voice — can correct the social problem by identifying and focusing on perpetrators.

Instead, the authors shifted the conversation to women. So we're reading about women and sex trafficking — women are associated with sex trafficking, almost as if they were guilty of this "scandal." Men are barely mentioned.

If the bombshell truth is that white, married, middle-aged men are disproportionately the demographic buying sex, the perpetrators of this crime, why wouldn't the bulk of the essay be about men?

The other part of the solution — discussed at length, in fact, comprising most of the article — was to make women and girls less available for sex trafficking. Because they were always running away from abusive relationships with no money and nowhere to go. Women and girls were making it so easy for men to buy them for sex.

In fact, the only action item mentioned for men and boys was to speak up to end the culture of silence that allows — wait for it — "prominent and ordinary Minnesotans" (Wait, weren't men buying sex? Now it's all Minnesotans again) to exploit and traffic young people every day without consequence.

What just happened? Men were just let off the hook with inaccurate passive language, that's what happened. Not only do we end with the idea that all Minnesotans are buying sex, but really, the only thing men have to do to fix this problem is speak up.

Why wasn't the whole article spent looking into why men are engaged in this antisocial behavior, and perhaps suggesting that men should stop buying sex? If you can't talk about who's buying sex and demand that that very specific group stop doing it, you're not going to have much impact.

Passive language is inaccurate, and allows perpetrators to escape accountability. Even the term sex trafficking — that's passive. Sex is being trafficked. If we want to tell the truth and have impact, we need to say it correctly — men buying women for sex. Or men buying women, girls, other men and sometimes boys for sex. In fact, in almost every instance in which men are disproportionately the perpetrators, authors/NGOs/governments go to extreme lengths, contorting the language in the most awkward passive ways to hide this truth.

Men rape women. Men impregnate women. Men discriminate against women. See the difference? The truth is not passive, it's active.