The news reports that this month Amnesty International is going to be discussing a proposal to support the decriminalization of sex work. This proposal isn’t necessarily particularly radical, given that decriminalization is not the same as legalization and several countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Turkey and Greece have already instituted decriminalization or legalization. It is important, however, because Amnesty International has a lot of weight in human rights debate, and a decision by Amnesty to support decriminalization would be a serious propaganda set back for the proponents of criminalization of sex work or the purchase of sex.
The weight Amnesty carries can be easily seen in the dismayed reactions of various feminist anti-sex work organizations to its decision to even consider this policy. The alternative to decriminalization preferred by some feminist organizations is to make buying sex illegal but to somehow not criminalize the seller, an impossible proposal that is nonetheless making some progress in northern Europe (it started in Sweden). Amnesty has always been a strong and forthright campaigner for the rights of women and girls, and a decision to support decriminalization of sex work would be a big blow against the so-called “Swedish model” of driving sex work underground by punishing the men who pay for it. The concern of campaigners for the Swedish model is on display in one of the bastions of support for this model, the Guardian, which has published a couple of opinion pieces decrying the move, and an editorial opposing it[1]. To be fair the Guardian has also published supportive articles, so it is actually hosting a debate, but I think it’s clear where its sympathies lie, and furthermore this newspaper offers an excellent overview of both the forces opposing decriminalization from the left, and the paucity of their ideas. The Guardian editorial is a symphony of wrongness, wrong in almost every sentence, and astounding in its disingenuousness, and all the opposing articles are noteworthy for their refusal to listen to the voices of sex workers who have been campaigning for decriminalization for years. Opponents of decriminalization have to ignore these women, denigrate them, or pretend that they represent only a tiny segment of first world sex workers, ignoring all the strong voices from sex workers in low- and middle-income countries, in order to come up with a policy that is essentially supportive of human trafficking, sexual and physical violence against sex workers – all in the interests of stamping out any form of sexual congress that doesn’t match their narrow view of how sex should be conceived and enjoyed. Some of the most vocal opponents of decriminalization, feminists like Julie Bindel, clearly see this as part of a strategy to achieve a very narrow feminist vision of how sexual interaction works, and are on record as opposing all forms of heterosexual activity until complete equality is achieved. For these feminists, as I have written before, sex workers are just convenient sacrifices on the road to a better future.
To be clear, feminism hasn’t always opposed sex work and the decriminalization or legalization of sex work, along with improved rights for sex workers in countries where it is illegal, are major achievements of the feminist movement over the past 100 years. This strange and obssessive desire to criminalize sex work and police the sexual choices of young, primarily poor women (often living in ex-colonies) is a very modern part of feminism, disconnected from the lives of the women it purports to be helping. My guess is that Amnesty International has been listening to the poorest women in the world, hearing their stories and paying attention to their movements, and is going to make a decision in favour of sexual freedom and the human rights of all women, not just those who choose to follow strict interpretations of sexual morality. This is important, because it isn’t just legal protection that sex workers need: it is the symbolic recognition of their right to control their bodies for their own profit as well as fun, and not just for strict reasons of love and childbirth. By recognizing the value of decriminalizing sex work, Amnesty won’t just be striking a blow in favour of policies that have consistently been shown to reduce sexual violence, protect against sexually transmitted infections and make all women safer: it will also be making a strong statement in favour of the complete sexual autonomy of even the world’s poorest women, recognizing that sexual autonomy should be available to more than just a few rich Swedish women. And sexual autonomy includes the right to rent out your body to strangers if you so choose – a concept that some feminists in the rich west seem to have a great deal of discomfort with. Let’s not make women in poor countries the victim of those feminists’ insecurities: support the decriminalization or legalization of sex work around the globe, because women and men everywhere should have the right to free choice about how to use their sexuality, and legal protection when they do so.
—
fn1: Note how many of the articles in the Guardian are illustrated with headless shots of “sex workers” in skimpy clothing. How come, even though the Guardian supports the criminalization of buying sex and not selling it, we only see pictures of the women it supports and not the dubious men it criminalizes?[2]
fn2: That was a rhetorical question.
Compromise and Conceit 
August 6, 2015 at 1:59 am
I saw the article in the Guardian by Molly Smith in support of decriminalising sex work and largely agreed with it. I was quite surprised that others do not agree and that people think it appropriate to listen to celebrities rather than the voices of sex workers themselves. I hope Amnesty International vote in favour of this.
August 6, 2015 at 9:17 am
To be fair to the celebrities, they’ve been sucked in by the inflated claims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation that are bandied about by the anti-sex work campaigners. Many people fall for the bogus statistics being used by these groups, so it’s not surprising, and it’s extremely hard for sex workers to get their voices heard because of the stigmatization and discrimination that arises from work in an illegal trade. A lot of the biggest gains for sex work have happened in Asia (e.g. Thailand) and Australasia, where these radical anti-sex campaigners aren’t so easily heard, and where the early gains of feminists in the 1970s have therefore not been reversed. I wrote a bit about this anti-sex movement and the pernicious effect of its claims about human trafficking, as well as the willingness of that movement to use the coercive organs of the state against sex workers and poor women, here. I am hoping that Amnesty’s policy decision will be a major rhetorical setback for this movement …
August 11, 2015 at 11:03 am
J. P. Morgan observed that people have ‘good’ and ‘real reasons’ for their actions. Anti sex work advocates assert their ‘good’ reason for opposing sex work is concern for exploitation of women. Perhaps the ‘real’ reason is to
increase their negotiation position in mating markets by reducing the supply
of sex through criminalization, virginity pledges, etc. Economists and evolutionary psychologists have observed this for decades. It may be time
to open this observation to public debate. – Dr Wayne Lawton, Bangkok, Thailand
August 11, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Really? You think that anti-prostitution campaigners are trying to get a better sex by decreasing the total sex supply? That seems a pretty long shot theory.
There would seem to be adequate space for querying people’s true motives without getting to the point you need to start wondering if their own “lack of action” is the driver behind their actions.
August 11, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Paul I think this a reference to the social market value theories underlying pick up artist logic and the ideology of the U.S. Men’s rights movement… It’s nonsense in that context and even sillier in this…
August 11, 2015 at 7:46 pm
OK. I”ll take your guess for it.
Though I don’t see how artificially lowered sex supplies work for pick up artists either… I presume there is some reversal of the theory or whatever, but feel free to not explain it to me.
August 11, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Try wehuntedthemammoth for a full explanation and glossary… But your life will be changed forever…
August 12, 2015 at 10:08 am
No.
August 12, 2015 at 10:11 am
I don’t understand it either! In other news amnesty accepted the policy today, which is good news. This will make it harder for opponents of decriminalization to claim it is a human rights disaster, and may force them to present more evidence, and argue against the policy on the basis of real evidence.