RUSHTON PARAY
AS WE observe Sexual Abuse Awareness Month, the conversation must extend beyond individual cases to the wider structures that enable sexual exploitation. The recent charges against Sean “P Diddy” Combs have reignited public discourse on consent, coercion, and power dynamics – especially in elite environments like entertainment, politics, and business. While the legal process around Combs continues, his case reflects broader issues in sex trafficking law and policy.
Sex trafficking is no longer confined to the stereotypical image of physical abduction or violence. Increasingly, it takes subtler forms: psychological manipulation, economic control, emotional grooming, and abuse of authority. And those in power – whether celebrities, CEOs, or corrupt politicians – are too often the ones creating or enabling these conditions. Existing laws are outdated. Reform is overdue.
Currently, most sex trafficking laws define coercion narrowly – typically involving physical force, threats, or fraud. This limited view excludes many real-life situations where people are pressured into sex acts through non-violent means.
In the entertainment industry, for example, a manager or producer might use their influence over someone’s career to demand sex. In politics, an official may use state resources or job security to control vulnerable individuals. These scenarios involve no physical force, but the pressure is undeniable. Victims comply not out of free will, but out of fear of losing their income, safety, or social standing.
Legal reforms must reflect this. Coercion should include psychological manipulation, blackmail, threats to livelihood, and misuse of authority. A person shouldn’t need to be beaten or locked in a room to be recognised as trafficked. If their freedom to say "no" is meaningfully taken away, that’s coercion.
Consent is often misunderstood in legal contexts. Many believe if someone says “yes,” that’s the end of the discussion. But in cases involving power imbalances – employer and employee, politician and constituent, artist and agent – consent becomes murky. Saying “yes” under pressure is not real consent.
Take a young intern working under a powerful minister. If she agrees to a sexual encounter fearing she may lose her job, her scholarship, or her safety, that’s not voluntary. The law must treat this for what it is: exploitation.
Sex trafficking legislation should incorporate clearer standards around consent under power imbalances. A “yes” extracted through pressure, manipulation, or fear must not shield abusers from accountability.
Many traffickers don’t use physical force – they use dependency. Victims may rely on them for housing, money, or emotional support. This is common in both high-society abuse and street-level trafficking. In some celebrity cases, victims are kept in lavish homes or flown around the world, but remain under control because they’re financially or emotionally trapped.
Corrupt politicians are not exempt. There have been quiet allegations in multiple countries,
