Ok so… we have to remember it was the 90s and the stereotypes of gay people at that time. A woman with hair that short absolutely would’ve been assumed to be a lesbian upon seeing her (today I feel like many cis het women have haircuts like that and of course there are many more non binary people who are out, but in the 90s it was a “tell”)
In the trafficker’s minds, taking a lesbian may be a “cover” because who would possibly think (again in the rather homophobic 90s) that a lesbian would be taken for ST?
I’m not saying I fully support this theory, if she was ST it very well could’ve been absolutely nothing to do with her perceived sexuality. But I’m also not entirely discounting how a trafficker might think and why they might see a rationale for targeting a lesbian
MOO
Presuming the existence of a sophisticated operation that not only targets American tourists for abduction as sex slaves, but goes after people who operatives might think are lesbian, seems to me to be a really big leap.
Do we have any evidence that this ring exists in Curacao, anything at all?
I had shared a trafficking report earlier from the US State Department. We know who gets trafficked into the sex trade: Poor women from adjacent countries in the Caribbean basin, usually Hispanic (Colombia, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, etc) and sometimes Haitians.
What, exactly, would be the point of abducting an American tourist? It would be an operation for no particular reason--Amy was attractive but not the stunning beauty that her parents imagine her to be; she was normal--with potentially huge negative consequences, all for no obvious gain.
(I would also suggest that her parents' statements that she was beautiful, so desirable as to become a target for sex slavery, now reads like a tell. These statements are a continued denial of Amy's sexual orientation, a restatement of their belief that of course she cannot be lesbian, that she is attractive to men.)
I would also add that if, by any chance, there actually was an abduction of Amy, she did not live long past the abduction. Whether she was attacked on the ship or whether she made it somehow onto the mainland early in the morning to buy drugs, she did not live long after. The idea that she was kept captive and shuttled around the Caribbean for years ... Why would they expose themselves to such risk?
I am reminded of the Sodder parents insisting that their abducted children had been kept alive long after the fire. What would be the point of the abductors continuing to expose themselves to such risk? The only scenario that I can come up with, as I mentioned earlier, is that the children were not abducted but rescued, that they did not want to return to their home for whatever reason. (This, I emphasize, is not a scenario that I believe was the case with the Sodder family, which seems to have been a normal large family.) What possible reason would Amy have to stay loyal to the people who were raping her in a foreign country?