In fact, what is involved is banning the institution of prostitution.
It goes without saying that this means not making a distinction between trafficking for the purpose of prostitution and prostitution itself. The term "abolitionist" is used in that sense. We do not believe that prostitution has always existed, that it is a trade like any other and that there is nothing you can do about it. We do not accept fate, any more than we accept fate as a reason for the existence of violence against women or fate as an explanation for the inequality between men and women.
Since I have the floor, I will speak about the issue of consent. When one talks about the definition of the expression "sex trafficking", it is very important to note that consent must not be a factor in determining whether a person is a victim or not. This is a very important issue.
No matter what the age of the victim, men always use the fact that women consented to sex in order to protect themselves from the charges against them. It is clear that the question of consent must not be included in our definition. Whether or not there was consent ought not to have an influence on determining whether a woman was a victim of trafficking or not. Otherwise, we would be requiring women to prove that they are victims. Traffickers, like rapists and men who want to abuse their power, will always claim that the woman was consenting. It's the oldest trick in the book.