There is a bad (academically lite) article claiming that “comfort women” are “prostitutes.” It oddly relies on game theory and ignores international law on forced labor & trafficking.

The journal is not even among the top 400 ranked by Wash/Lee. It’s def not Harvard Law Review.

One of the many questionable examples in the article is a story about a karayuki-san (Japanese sex worker sent abroad) named Osaki, whom the author claims that “even at age 10, she knew what the job entailed.”

She is 10 years old.

Do you see the fallacy?

Licensed sex workers (the author calls them “prostitutes”) had to be smuggled when they “worked abroad” because Japan was violating international laws.

Putting aside forced labor and consent, query whether the contracts were valid when the terms were themselves illegal.

There are zero citations for the section arguing that women had bargaining power over advance payments that are a key part of trafficking victims.

Except that the author cites his own past article. That’s the one citation.

So much for academic rigor.