"Sex Work Is Work" is a shit slogan.

[ScreamingMeMe]

I know the intent behind it is that sex work is nothing to be ashamed of, and it absolutely isn't. But there isn't a great deal of nuance to it, is there?

For every self-proclaimed "happy hooker" or Only Fans worker, there will be 1000s of women who have been abused and/or trafficed whose "choice" to do sex work wasn't really a choice at all, whose lives are grim and shit.

"Sex work is work" makes no such distinctions. So can we really expect the men who use sex workers to?

I'm trying to think of a better slogan, but can't come up with anything quite as catchy. But maybe simple, catchy slogans aren't possible for complex issues.

"Don't Shame Sex Workers"?

I dunno...

I'm glad you were able to do that too, Charley. So much misrepresentation going on with such spin.

Charley, that is absolutely shocking. I hadn’t really read that widely about this topic before but it is shocking how there always seem to be lobbyists who are making money (pimps here) influencing policies that are purporting to protect the vulnerable.

I am uncomfortable with pharmaceutical companies supporting transgender issues in the same way. How impartial are organisations which stand to make millions on an issue.

"The policy itself was drafted by another pimp called Douglas Fox. "

Nope.

www.amnesty.org.uk/douglas-fox

The first problem with an article by amnesty is that they signed a letter saying that people who defend biological sex are bigots; they should be denied political and media representation, and they are slurred them as being 'aligned' with the far-right.

So, I'd wouldn't trust their version of anything.

Oh, and Amnesty explicitly stated that there was no such thing as a biologically male or female body.

Not sure what Amnesty's views on the gender critical debate have to do with sex work? Maybe that's best for another thread.

Here is the text from the above link which clearly debunks claims that Mr Fox had influence on the policy:

"Douglas Fox has not been a member of Amnesty International for some years and has had zero input on Amnesty's draft policy on sex work.

Claims that he did are without foundation.

The decision to undertake a policy review rests wholly with our international headquarters. The process that led to the draft policy began in April 2012 at Amnesty's international headquarters rooted in our experience of work conducted during our Stop Violence Against Women campaign, and our work on poverty and human rights.

Amnesty is made up of 80 offices around the world, all of which now have the opportunity to feed into the global consultation process. Amnesty UK is one of those 80 offices. Amnesty UK's position on the policy will be decided after a consultation with its 250,000 members. Douglas Fox ceased to be a member of Amnesty some years ago.

A motion to the 2008 Amnesty UK AGM calling for the decriminalisation of sex work was put forward by Newcastle City Group of Amnesty, of which Mr Fox was a member. The policy proposed by the Group was rejected by Amnesty UK’s AGM. Instead the AGM then took the decision to call for a policy review, a decision that was opposed - unsuccessfully - by Newcastle City Group and Mr Fox.

The effect of the Amnesty UK AGM decision was to require Amnesty UK's board to ask the governing bodies of the global movement to review our policies. This request was made in 2009 through a motion to the International Council Meeting. Amnesty UK did not call for the decriminalisation of sex work. Ultimately, Amnesty UK did not feel that there was sufficient support for this request, and the request was withdrawn. "

That statement is wonderfully disingenuous. Here's what happened:

Douglas Fox, a pimp, joins Amnesty International in 2008 and immediately starts agitating for full decriminalisation.

He joins the 2008 Amnesty UK AGM and angrily confronts feminist groups who are also there campaigning for a Nordic Model approach.

He writes and submits a motion arguing that it is a human rights violation for pimps and punters to be criminalised, calling for the buying and selling of sexual services to be decriminalised, and relabels pimps as sex workers. In short, he proposes a motion that is designed to protect prostitution not prostitutes.

The motion is rejected with about a third of delegates in favour.

Douglas Fox leaves Amnesty in 2009, but continues to lobby for full decriminalisation and encourages other pimps to join Amnesty to lobby for full decriminalisation.

There is plenty of evidence that key members of so-called sex workers organisations are pimps, including the aforementioned Alejandra Gill, Vice President of NSWP, the Global Network of Sex Work Projects.

In 2016, Amnesty publishes a report called WHAT I'M DOING IS NOT A CRIME. THE HUMAN COST OF CRIMINALIZING SEX WORK IN THE CITY OF BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA and includes the following quote on page 28:

^According to sex workers interviewed by Amnesty International, the psychologists accompanying officers on raids can be forceful in their questioning and often tell sex workers that they are victims of sexual
exploitation, even when sex workers are adamant that is not the case.^

“The psychologists tell you to say you’re a victim of sexual exploitation. Workers are frightened by the whole situation so of course they say they’re victims. They also tell you to say that and that if you do, they won’t call your family. They take pictures of you.”

Amnesty International interview with Claudia Brizuela, a street-based sex worker and head of AMMAR Capital, 24 September 2014

Claudia Brizuela was arrested and charged with sex trafficking in 2015 in a harrowing case involving over 30 women described as extremely vulnerable in local press reports. Another head of AMMAR, another one of those so-called "sex worker" organisations campaigning for full decriminalisation, was also charged with sex trafficking in a different incident.

The list of key people involved with the "sex worker" organisations advising Amnesty on its prostitution policy who actually turned out to be pimps makes for an interesting read. There's a non-exhaustive list at the bottom of this page here: logosjournal.com/2016/farley-2/

Interesting are also the testimonies of survivors of prostitution who dared (and continue to dare) argue against Amnesty's policy, often ignored, sometimes even bullied into silence by Amnesty International or local Amnesty branches when trying to speak out against its prostitution policy.

You'll find them in this Amnesty Dossier written by Normac, an Australian group campagning for the Nordic Model approach.

Anyway, back to Douglas Fox, co-founder of the International Sex Workers Union and NSWP. In 2009, the year Douglas Fox left Amnesty International, the NSWP (which he continues to use to lobby for full decriminalisation) is appointed co-chair of UNAIDS and advises that organisation on their prostitution policy. In turn, both the NSWP and UNAIDS are credited with advising Amnesty International on their new prostitution policy.

Douglas Fox may have had his motion rejected at the 2008 Amnesty UK AGM, but six years later his demands and statements are included in the leaked 2014 policy proposal. Including the later deleted and rather astonishing claim that criminalising pimps and punters amounts to a human rights violation.

In the end, Amnesty International follows Douglas Fox's demands and adopts a prostitution policy that protects prostitution but not prostitutes.

I honestly don't even know why Amnesty International keeps denying that its policy was influenced by pimps and punters. If looking at all the so-called sex worker organisations run by pimps and punters who advised Amnesty isn't enough, all you have to do is look at the policy itself. It does state after all that it's ok with states criminalising the selling of sex while adamantly demanding that pimps and punters should not ever be criminalised.

So you acknowledge Amnesty's draft policy wasn't written by DF after all. It just happens that the policy they eventually decided on happens to be the same one DF wanted.

As mentioned by Amnesty above, they have 80 offices around the world (the UK office is just one of them) who all contributed towards the policy.

"It does state after all that it's ok with states criminalising the selling of sex"

Does it? Where?

Yes, I am happy to correct my previous claim that Amnesty's draft policy was written by a pimp. It would have been more accurate to say that Amnesty incorporated the pimp's phrasing, ideas and demands from a report and motion he submitted to the 2008 Amnesty UK AGM into its own (leaked) draft policy in 2014.

So, I'm happy to go back to my original statement, that key people who influenced the shaping of Amnesty's prostitution policy were pimps. I think there is sufficient evidence, from various investigative journalists like Julie Bindel for instance, to state that the claim that Amnesty International was advised by pimps (and more than one) is accurate. In my view Amnesty should own this. It's not a secret, there's plenty of evidence and the policy itself makes it very obvious that pimps and punters are at the very least as important to Amnesty, if not more important than, prostituted women, men and children.

As for criminalising sex workers, here's the passage from page 14:

States can impose restrictions on the sale of sexual services, provided that such restrictions comply with international human rights law, in particular in that they must be for a legitimate purpose, appropriate to meet that purpose, provided by law, and necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved, and not discriminatory.

International human rights law obliges state parties to abolish prostitution. It absolutely allows criminalising prostitutes, it even allows for a purely prohibitionist approach. Which Amnesty International is aware of. (A close reading of the legislation makes it clear that to fulfill their obligations to victims of prostitution under these treaties, states should however focus on criminalising pimps and punters and supporting prostitutes to exit the sex trade.)

For anyone interested in reading about what international human rights laws say about prostitution, there's a good analysis here:

www.cap-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ProstitutionUnderIntlHumanRightsLawEN.pdf

Its publisher is the Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution (CAP International).

"Amnesty International was advised by pimps"

The policy was created after consultation with dozens of sex worker and women's rights groups local and international, and Amnesty has 80 offices around the world who contributed (the UK office is just one of those). The decision to support complete decrim was made after taking all of these views (a very large number of people around the world) into consideration.

The claim that "Amnesty's policy was written/influenced by pimps" is kindof weak and flimsy.

"International human rights law obliges state parties to abolish prostitution."

Amnesty isn't the only human rights group to advocate full decrim, Human Rights Watch does too. There's a decent list of decrim supporters on that DecrimNow letter.

Human Rights! Amnesty (in Ireland at any rate) seems to be managed by people who carpet bag from one charity sector org and NGO to another and go with what they think is 'fashionable'. Also, in Ireland, seems to be that they are in bed with other NGO's. They seemed to be very easily swayed in the case of Alexei Navalny. Amnesty showed themselves to be a very conditional advocate of human rights. Thankfully the resulting outcry at their denouncement of the imprisoned Navalny swayed them to do the right thing and reinstated him as a prisoner of conscience in their eyes. Were they really saying that it is ok for Putin to lock him up 'cos he said something in the past and so his freedom or life doesn't matter? Why do they think they were formed? It wasn't supposed to be in order to give plum jobs and public visibility to the lads.

I'll never quite get over Amnesty asking for political representation to be withdrawn from people who are standing up for their rights.

Oh, and the rubbish they wrote about there being neither a biological male or a female body, when they were supposedly publicising FGM, access to abortion in NI, and Uyghur men and women in China was a reference to how full of bull and devoid of credibility they have become.

Again Charley, thanks for cutting through the optics on their 'pimp and punter' led line on prostituted women and their rights.

The policy was created after consultation with dozens of sex worker and women's rights groups local and international, and Amnesty has 80 offices around the world who contributed (the UK office is just one of those). The decision to support complete decrim was made after taking all of these views (a very large number of people around the world) into consideration.

The claim that "Amnesty's policy was written/influenced by pimps" is kindof weak and flimsy.

I already posted links showing that the consultation was neither thorough nor did it take into account the views of prostitutes and organisations opposing full decriminalisation.

The phrase "sex worker" is used by Amnesty International to refer to pimps as well as prostitutes. Many of these so-called "sex worker" organisations are founded and run by pimps. A fact Julie Bindel goes into great detail in her investigation into these groups in her book "The Pimping of Prostitution". So the argument that Amnesty wrote this policy after talking to "sex worker" organisations as if "sex worker" only refers to prostituted women might work with people who don't know that Amnesty International uses the phrase "sex worker" to refer to pimps. It doesn't work with me.

Furthermore, and I also posted a link to this, after its 2014 draft policy was leaked, Amnesty International gave its members only three (3!) weeks to consult. Of those few (just over 20) who managed to put a submission in, the vast majority (two thirds) asked for a longer consultation period, while the rest amost equally supported or opposed the proposal.

That's a sham consultation. Especially in light of the 2013 memo leaked by a whistleblower showing that Amnesty went into the consultation already decided on the outcome. That also makes this a sham consultation.

Furthermore, we know from statements made by abolitionist organisations run by prostitutes and former prostitutes, that they submitted their objections to the policy proposal as well. They are not even acknowledged in the policy paper. And prostitutes who dared oppose the policy proposal in person reported being bullied into silence.

That's a matter of record, unless you want to claim that on a matter of deep personal importance to them, their word counts for less than the word of Amnesty's functionaries.

Amnesty isn't the only human rights group to advocate full decrim, Human Rights Watch does too. There's a decent list of decrim supporters on that DecrimNow letter.

I am aware. But the existence of groups seeking to protect prostitution at the cost of its victims does not have any impact on international human rights laws that oblige all state parties to abolish prostitution to protect its victims.

Full decriminalisation is an approach that violates several international human rights laws. The Nordic Model approach violates none.

It had become quite obvious that Amnesty International is no longer the organisation I once thought it was, Cailleach1, but the Amnesty Ireland statement demanding that women with be denied political representation if they object to the doctrine of gender identity and its political implications was a bottom drawer move even for an organisation that had sunk so low.

It's raison d'être once was the protection of dissenters and their argument was that every person should enjoy the full human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From behind the iron curtain that goal seemed to be such an important condition of a just and free society. So very different from where I was.

And there they were, stating that peaceful women objecting to an ideology and policies that negatively impacted their rights should be deprived of their rights. Because they dissented! Honestly, it still doesn't compute.

I didn’t realise till I’d read this thread that pimps and brothel owners were advocating for full decriminalisation for THEM (as opposed to the actual women themselves, which I support).
How can that get support? How could anyone think that was a good idea??

Late to this thread but sharing this as the next person who says to you "sex is work" should watch this.

This is very distressing. It shows a pregnant 16 year old who has marks, bruises, cuts and self harming scars. I don't know how much the interviewer helps her or intends to help her. It's very shocking.

fb.watch/8lRQ2AT5Aa/

I think it needs to be turned around completely.

There's nothing wrong with paying for sex!

Men are entitled to a sex life and paying for sex is the same as paying for a haircut!

Don't stigmatise men who pay for sex! It's legal! Stop the judgement!

Men who pay for sex are everywhere! It's wrong to think badly of them! Your work colleagues, brother, husband. Ordinary family men! Stop the judgement!

I honestly believe that every earnest wide eyed liberal feminist who trills that ‘sex work is work and valid!’ Should have to go and pull a shift as a sex worker.

Let’s see how valid they think the work is after eight hours of having to service dirty, abusive men.

What they actually mean is that sex work is work for poor women. Not women like them.

I often wonder how it must feel to be a single mum, so desperate to pay the rent she has to go out and do this awful, exploitative ‘work’ night after night, her self esteem and faith in humanity on the floor but without any other options to feed and clothe her family. Then she hears these fucking clueless privileged idiots come out with this claptrap and basically saying that this is a normal and acceptable way for her to make a living. It must be soul destroying.

There was a thread on here recently where a woman who'd done sex work for a decade and wanted to stop was struggling to get a normal job. Huge gap in her CV. Heartbreaking. All the men (I wanted to call them pathetic tiny dick losers or something but I'm stopping that. It is men, just men, who do these unspeakable things to women) who used her body as meat can fill in a CV with no shame. Why does this poor woman have to still carry their shame for them? They should still be paying by the hour for that service.

[quote OhHolyJesus]Late to this thread but sharing this as the next person who says to you "sex is work" should watch this.

This is very distressing. It shows a pregnant 16 year old who has marks, bruises, cuts and self harming scars. I don't know how much the interviewer helps her or intends to help her. It's very shocking.

fb.watch/8lRQ2AT5Aa/[/quote]
That's one of the issues I think. Most of the people saying sex work is work have no connections to the women and girls on the streets. I once babysat for a lovely young mother, a prostituted woman working on the streets. I have never seen anyone beaten so black and blue in my life. It was just the punters being rough, it wasn't one big beating. She had fresh bruises on top of day-old bruises on top of almost healed ones. Her work involved having pain inflicted as standard, not because she was into masochism, but because these men paid to use her body. It didn't matter to them if they hurt her or if she consented to being handled in a rough way.

I cannot think of any other work where having pain casually inflicted on your body without your consent is an accepted part of the job.

That's who I think of when I hear sex work is work.

Paying for sex should never be normalised. How those trapped in prostitution receive support to leave, and that we should not condemn them, is a separate matter.

The idea of 'sex work' being completely decriminalised makes me feel physically sick.

Go onto Punternet or other similar 'review' sites and then imagine living in a society which completely legitimises men speaking about actual human women like that.

Urgh.

The way the language works (how we're told it works on here often) is very telling.

Sex work is work.
Anyone doing anything involved is a sex worker. Bar staff, manager lap dancing club.
Pimps.
Etc.

As the term prostitution is apparently verboten. It means that the most dangerous and exploitative type of 'sex work' should not generally have a way to discuss by itself. Thus the particular vulnerabilies, backgrounds of those selling sex, the dangers, etc. If the sex work term should be used (which is the push) then dangers etc are watered down by being mixed in with a much larger group.

Then the liberty l point that sex work is about consensual transaction.
If there is coercion, grooming, force, threats, control etc. Then it's a crime. Rape etc. And so by definition anyone who experiences that is NOT a sex worker. Anything that looks into the situation with exploitation etc should NOT be included under sex work and referred to as victim of crime.

And so the things that so many women are concerned about when it comes to selling or being sold for sex. Should be excluded when discussing sex work.

Clever eh.

Prostitution isn’t going anywhere, it’s existed since the dawn of time. Some women choose it as a valid career choice and make good money doing it.

Making sex trafficking harder is one of the many benefits of BREXIT, the majority are trafficked from Eastern Europe and we had no idea they were here.

Some countries have basic hotels in non residential areas that are policed so all participants can be as safe as possible and access health care more easily.

Countries in Europe? With the hotels? Where the traffickers will go if they can't get women and girls into UK?

And where UK men can still easily visit?

That's very reassuring. Yep. Nice point.

Who is the 'we' that had no idea they were here?

The traffickers knew. The women trafficked. All the punters.

Those living close by probably suspected. And modern slavery including being forced into prostitution has been in the news for ages.

Other points.

Sex work which includes paying for sex are being massively pushed to be seen as standard. Like working in Tesco. Better even!

The punters benefit obv. And demand increases as paying for sex is presented as a totally normal, reasonable thing to do. A fair transaction. Maybe even doing a good deed- the money is wanted or more often needed. Your custom helps women who may need it to pay their bills etc!

So if the demand is going up. And women trafficked in from overseas really does massively reduce.

Then those who profit will look elsewhere. To meet the demand. They will look locally. They will focus more on women and girls who are vulnerable. Desperate. Increased grooming. Runaways, rough sleepers. No one will know if they are taken.

Care home leavers. Already targeted massively. More attractive to those who make money from selling women and girls for sex.

Girls/ women who are vulnerable due to intellectual disabilities. Another group already targeted.

And so on and so on.

And you know. The BBC and others already run pieces on things like. OnlyFans is great and empowering. Sugar daddy arrangements are lucrative and desirable. Universities increasingly have the approach of accepting that plenty of students (female) will naturally get involved in sex work. Fits around lectures. Easy money. The info I've seen is all about reducing stigma.
No info on what to do if you want to stop. Orgs to help. What you can do if feel in danger. Or are attacked. Nothing.

15 years ago a uni would have been very concerned about any students selling sex. Safeguarding. Young people away from home often for first time, vulnerable. Duty of care.
Now they are awesome go for it. Isn't it terrible anyone would see this in anything other than a positive light!