Beyond Fantasy: Unveiling How Today’s Porn is the Greatest Human Rights and Public Health Crisis of Our Time

The most recent statistics show that one hundred percent of young men and eighty-two percent of young women are being exposed to Internet porn, with the average age of first exposure between the ages of 10-13. Experts now predict that in a couple of years we will have complete global Internet saturation. What does it mean that soon every single human being on earth will be exposed to porn starting as children? The crisis of the global spread of modern porn is bigger than the global crisis of poverty, bigger than the global crisis of infectious disease, bigger than the global crisis of environmental pollution, and bigger than any other health or human rights crisis we have seen in the history of humankind. In the pages of this book, you will learn why the proliferation of porn is anything but fantasy, but is, in fact, a very real and concrete threat to our collective humanity.

Enter your e-mail address HERE to receive a FREE book chapter and receive a special link to pre-order the book now at a discounted price!


Hot Girls Wanted?

“We don’t want to get women out of porn, we want to get them INTO porn!” said Erika Lust, the heroine pornographer and porn crusader featured in the first of Rashida Jones’ new Netflix documentary series on the porn industry called “Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On.” TUnknownhis emphatic statement by Erika seems to embody the message Rashida was clearly sending throughout episode one.

“Women on Top” is the name of the first installment of the series and highlights a new phenomenon called “feminist** porn.” The idea is that by placing women behind the camera (and in front of it), the harms of porn are replaced by romance and sex that is supposed to be enjoyable for the women involved to the women in porn and appeal to women watching it.

The story begins with scenes of flowers blowing in the wind, the sun shining and horses frolicking on a farm. We hear soft music and the peaceful sounds of birds chirping in the background. Next, we are introduced to Holly, a porn photographer whose claim to fame is (according to her), creating “glamorous, beautiful” pornographic images. The story of Holly’s life and the life of her mother, who is also a pornographer, is presented in a nostalgic and romantic way. At one point Holly proudly reminisces about a time her mother shot an eight-woman orgy for Playboy magazine.

For much of the time Holly and her mother sit at a breakfast table, coffees in hand, and discuss in a manner that comes across as cozy and cute, how they have always been so shy to talk about “real” sex openly, even to the point of saying that having the mother-daughter talk about sex when Holly was young was “so awkward.” We get the idea through this scene that the “special” pornographic work of Holly and her mother is playful, innocent and fanciful.

Then, we are whisked to Barcelona, and in a flurry of dramatic and emotionally charged sound bites, Rashida continues to paint the picture of a perfect porn utopia. A place where empowered women rule, the scenes are beautiful and glamourous; the sex filmed is real, pleasurable, caring, classy, intimate and downright amazing; and the sexual fantasies are story-driven, romantic, and inviting. Erika Lust says that unlike mainstream porn, her films show “good sexual encounters”…that “empower” women and are based on “values where the people in [the porn scene] feel connected, that they are respecting each other,” and that show “female pleasure.”

After so much buildup of this so-called feminist empowering porn, the viewer is about to burst with joy because Rashida has almost totally convinced you that porn is a healthy and happy place for women. Finally we are brought onto an actual “feminist porn” set, where Erika Lust does her magic.

A young woman named Monica is seated at a piano and is about to embark on her first ever porn scene. She is wide-eyed and visibly nervous. The script says that she is going to act out her wildest fantasy of engaging in sex while she plays the piano on a stage. She anxiously fumbles through her lines a few times and Erika is getting impatient.

Then in comes the male character and the sexual scene begins. During the scene Monica is aggressively being pummeled by the man from behind, her hair is being yanked back, and she is clearly in distress. She calls out “Stop!”, “please give me a moment, I need a moment.” Annoyed, the crew asks her what the problem is, and as she winces as she says “I’m in pain!”

But waiting will cost too much money. They are on the clock, and so Erika the “feminist” hero of this episode, who actually could care less about Monica, bluntly tells her to just “fake it.”

Oh. Wait. I thought this was supposed to depict “real” female pleasure. Apparently not.

In an effort to explain away what actually just happened, Erika says, “well in the end this is a film, and it is an illusion, and I create the image that I want you to see as an audience.”

You see, what Rashida has been presenting through the stories of Erika and Holly have been thinly veiled illusions as well.

If you aren’t convinced that Erika’s words about female empowerment are a mere facade, you could dig a tiny bit deeper and check out her website. But once there you may be thoroughly perplexed and disturbed by the fact that her latest porn film is about the mutilation, rape, and torture of a woman “submissive” by a man—she titles it “feminist submissive porn.”

Say what? The most basic definition of feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. How is the rape and mutilation of a woman by a man even a remotely feminist idea?

One sex industry survivor told me, “Porn was built on the antithesis of feminism. It was built by men for men. The bottom line is porn is all about releasing men’s inner predator, on film and virtually. Porn is never about the girl…they are not ‘turned on’ by the scenes in porn.”

The fact is that this so-called feminist porn is no different than mainstream hardcore porn. It is exactly the same thing with higher cost and production value.

This episode is an example of a much larger disturbing trend happening today in pop culture. Women are attempting to own the title of “feminist” in order to whitewash and justify some of the most degrading acts that could ever happen to women. Touting the label of “feminist,” women are pimping out other women, promoting porn, promoting prostitution, and objectifying themselves by peddling softcore porn on social media in the name of “liberation” (see Kim Kardashian’s latest nude photo with the caption “liberated”).

But just because I say the words “I can fly” a hundred times doesn’t make it true. Likewise, porn doesn’t magically lose its harms by repeatedly invoking the words “feminist” and “empowering.”  The fact remains that porn is inherently objectifying, dehumanizing and degrading to women regardless of the spin used to try and present it in a different light.

Rashida would have done well to stick to the truth about porn as she did in her original documentary, in 2015, for which she received backlash because of an honest presentation of the industry. But sadly, at least in this episode, she bowed to the pressure of a porn-influenced media culture in order not to lose her “cool-status” in the eyes of her peers.

At Exodus Cry we have a vision for women that doesn’t include being sexually exploited and consumed by hyper-aggressive men on film while having to fake pleasure. What Rashida has presented in this episode is not empowerment or equality–it is downright objectification and degradation.

** It’s important to acknowledge the existence of healthy feminism. At its most basic level, feminism is advocating for the rights of women equal to those of men. It’s not about man-hating. It’s not about casting off all traditional roles of women, as long as these roles can be exercised from a place of equality and respect. Although the term has been hijacked in a myriad of ways by those who promote ideas that are not in line with preserving the dignity of women, healthy feminism does still exist.


Naked is Normal

After a short failed experiment with removing nudes from its magazine, the iconic Playboy has brought the porn back in its March/April 2017 issue.  The much younger Cooper Hefner is replacing his father at the helm of the company, and is setting out to re-brand Playboy for this generation.

The front cover of the new issue has written in bold, the declaration “Naked is Normal”. Is it? Yes, I would have to agree, it is normal. In the context of a loving private relationship, of course it is normal. But that is not what we are dealing with in Playboy. There is healthy and harmful sexuality just as there is healthy and harmful food. The objectifying nudity in Playboy is certainly the later.

Next there is the aspect of the normalization of displaying and consumui-58a26784148bb9.40575153ing the hyper-sexualized female body.  In our porn saturated world, “porn culture” has indeed normalized sexual exploitation and the commodification of the human body.  

So yes, as Playboy is so boldly declaring, naked pornographic images have become normal. But why?  One reason is that our media saturated society perpetuates the “sex sells” ideal to both men and women in a powerful way. If a woman wants to be visible in today’s pornified society it is almost imperative that her sexuality be exploited and put on display for the world to consume.

Take for example your typical music or TV reality star Instagram feed.  Just scroll through some of the most famous names in pop culture and you will find a trove of photos that leave absolutely nothing to the imagination.  Kim and Chloe Kardashian, Chrissy Teigen, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus and Chelsea Handler just to name a few, make getting naked on social media part of their attention grabbing, money making routine.

Playboy has returned to nudes because they know that generates a profit for them. Cooper Hefner recently tweeted, that he deemed the previous removal of nudity from the magazine a bad move. “I’ll be the first to admit that the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated, but removing it entirely was a mistake,” the message reads. “Nudity was never the problem because nudity isn’t a problem. Today we’re taking our identity back and reclaiming who we are.”

Well Mr. Hefner, today WE women are taking OUR identity back and reclaiming who WE ARE.  Women are so much more than sexual objects–a buffet of flesh to be bought and sold as currency in the market of pop culture acceptance. We are daughters of a King, deserving of respect and dignity, and we are of great value even with our clothes ON.

The Girlfriend Experience


In our culture today there is a dangerous cover narrative propagated by those profiting from the sex industry that promotes prostitution as a glamorous, exciting, and legitimate form of work for women in need of a little extra cash. This narrative is in no way based on reality or research—it is a fairytale that deceives the public into believing what can be called “The Pretty Woman Myth”.

The new Starz series “The Girlfriend Experience” is just one more in a long line of sex industry propaganda pieces. The director of the series, Steven Soderbergh, is either extremely naive in his views of prostitution, or is a peddler of harmful lies about what the sex industry is really like for the women in it—and his misrepresentations have serious consequences for the lives of millions of women around the globe who are, or who will become, victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Usually a skilled filmmaker would spend considerable time in research about the subject of his project. It sadly appears though that Soderbergh did no such thing regarding prostitution.

The storyline of the “Girlfriend Experience” is one of a young law student named Christine who gets enticed by a friend into a lifestyle of “high end” escort prostitution, which she does “on the side” in order to earn exorbitant amounts of money. Her life is presented by Soderbergh as exciting, alluring, sexy, lucrative, and yes… empowering.  

In describing the way that Soderbergh sees the evolution of Christine’s character, he says,”[s]he becomes aware of the fact that she has an effect on men and starts thinking like a superhero who’s just discovering what powers she has,” Soderbergh continues, “She’s sort of pushing the boundaries of, how far do these powers that I think I have extend?”  

What Soderbergh refuses to see is that the concept of empowerment is antithetical to prostitution. Prostitution, properly understood, is a system of institutionalized gender inequality and violence against women. If this were not so we would see men selling their bodies to women at the same rate that women are being sold to men. This is not the case. Even men who are in prostitution are primarily feminized and transgendered, often called “lady boys,” and are treated by their male buyers with the same brutality and lack of humanity that women in prostitution are. Prostitution is a system of violence, because everywhere in the world where prostitution has been studied in any depth, extreme harm perpetrated against prostituted women is a consistent phenomenon—in both legal and illegal markets.

If Soderbergh wanted to create a fantasy series then he is spot on—if he was trying to create a series based on reality with an honest and truthful look at the experiences for most women in prostitution, including “high end” escorts, then he has completely missed the mark.

At the end of the trailer advertising the series, a male buyer sits across from the table and asks Christine the question, “do you want to?” and she answers with an assuring and confident “YES.” This hits on another misconception perpetuated by Soderbergh —that of what consent means in the context of prostitution.  All of the evidence of the harms of the sex industry seem to be instantly dismissed by those who defend it with the old and tired argument that prostitution is “just” sex between “two consenting adults.” Nothing could be a more juvenile understanding of the nature of prostitution and the strong forces of injustice that propel women into it. There is a vast and powerful coercive landscape that is the background for a woman’s so called “choice” to enter prostitution that must be understood in order to grasp what is really happening to women in the industry. The magnetic forces that push and pull women to sell their bodies include poverty, gender inequality, racism, sexism, prior sexual abuse, and a culture of objectification.  

Women in the 21st century deserve more than the false notion of “empowerment” that says taking money to get naked in front of a stranger who sees them as his merchandise, and perform sex acts that they would never do outside of being paid, is what it means to have power. In these scenarios the ones with the real power are the men handing over the money to women who are desperate for it. It is a misogynistic system of pure inequality where men dominate, abuse, and force the women they buy to perform for them.

True empowerment is the ability of a woman to accomplish what her heart deeply desires without having to crumble to the cultures’ sexist demands. Women who are genuinely empowered are women who get what they want in life without having to pay for it with their stripped down bodies at the expense of their ravaged minds and destroyed souls. And at the end of the day what really empowers a woman is dignity, equality, respect, relationship, love, and freedom from oppression—and those things cannot be bought.

The U.S. government turns a blind eye to policies that fuel sex trafficking (Washington Post)

Mark P. Lagon is president of Freedom House and a former U.S. ambassador at large for human trafficking from 2007 to 2009. Laila Mickelwait is director of abolition at the advocacy group Exodus Cry.

Washington Post, February 1, 2016

The International Labor Organization reported in 2014 that forced commercial sexual exploitation generates a startling $99 billion per year. Every day, millions of women and girls around the globe are being coerced to have sex for the financial gain of the pimps and traffickers who abuse and exploit them.

Whenever strategies for the elimination of sex trafficking are discussed, one theme consistently emerges: the importance of prevention through demand reduction. It seems like a no-brainer that reducing demand for commercial sex will reduce the exploitation of women and girls in the commercial sex industry. When a country allows for the legal purchase of sex, demand increases, as does the supply of women and girls needed to meet that demand. The reverse is also true: When countries prohibit the purchase of sex, fewer men buy, and fewer women and girls are trafficked. Legislation aimed at curbing demand for commercial sex can prevent sex trafficking.

In 2004, the State Department noted that, “where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery.” This view has been shared by Republican and Democratic administrations. Last year, the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons reiterated: “If there were no demand for commercial sex, sex trafficking would not exist in the form it does today. This reality underscores the need for continued strong efforts to enact policies and promote cultural norms that disallow paying for sex.”

So the State Department continues to talk the talk, but unfortunately it is unwilling to walk the walk. Year after year, the department sidesteps the most critical aspect of determining whether nations are truly “making serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex,” as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act mandates. Punishing those who seek to purchase commercial sex is the one proven indicator of whether a country is making efforts to reduce demand. But it seems the department doesn’t want to ruffle feathers by turning words into action.

Take Spain, where purchasing sex is legal and most detected trafficking cases are for the purpose of prostitution. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime noted that 39 percent of the male population in Spain admitted to purchasing sex at least once. According to a 2007 Spanish government study, sex is purchased between 900,000 and 1.5 million times a day in a nation of 47 million. Cities attract and cater to tourists for whom purchasing sex is an expected part of the nightlife. Club Paradise in La Jonquera, one of the largest brothels in Europe, boasts of having more than “200 girls” who work in 101 rooms to cater to the desires of men who are free to buy sex without consequence.

According to the State Department’s global Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, there may be as many as 400,000 women being prostituted in Spain, and up to 90 percent of these women are trafficked and coerced into prostitution by organized crime — meaning up to 360,000 women are victimized. Yet for the past 14 years, Spain has received a “Tier 1” ranking in the report, meaning the country is in full compliance with minimum standards set forth to eliminate trafficking. There has been no mention of the fact that the legality of purchasing sex in Spain is a magnet for human trafficking. In the 2014 TIP report , the department even gives Spain credit for prevention of trafficking: “the government [of Spain] continued prevention efforts through a variety of public awareness campaigns involving flyers, banners, exhibits, and other displays.” No amount of flyers should warrant giving a nation that allows men to buy sex with impunity a “passing” grade on prevention of human trafficking.

Enough is enough. Any national government having the authority to criminalize the purchase of commercial sex should do so. It’s time for Congress to pass pending legislation sponsored by Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) that would update the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to require future TIP reports to assess sex-purchase laws when determining whether nations are making serious efforts to reduce demand for commercial sex.

The grades that the United States gives in its global TIP report matter. They can sometimes cause diplomatic indigestion, but they have propelled nations to improve their conduct. They would be a stronger tool if they took seriously the need for nations to hold to account the men who would buy women and girls for sex. It is high time to stop saying “boys will be boys” and recognize that abolishing sex trafficking requires placing the stigma on the purchaser rather than the commodified women and girls they buy.

A Reflection on the Casualties of Playboy


At first glance Playboy magazine’s decision to stop including nude photos appears to be cause for celebration–and in a way it is, as one less outlet of exploitation is a good thing. However, we also know the underlying reason for the change is cause for lament.   Porn has become so ubiquitous and easily accessible via technology, that Playboy magazine is no longer commercially viable nor culturally relevant– and therefore they have decided to change course. Playboy has essentially been devoured by the monster they helped to create. In the words of Playboy’s own chief executive, “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”[1]

In December of 1953 the first issue of Playboy was printed. Hugh Hefner’s biographer later reflected on the creation of that first magazine, noting that, “with an $8,000 loan ($1,000 from his mother, who had hoped he’d become a missionary), the 27-year-old Hefner produced a pasted-together magazine. He bought the rights to an old pin-up picture of Marilyn Monroe and used it as centerfold bait to drum up 70,000 advance orders.” [2] Since that time, countless women have been objectified, exposed and exploited through the publication. Even children such as the underage Brooke Shields, and others were stripped naked for profit, by Playboy. And now, with the production of the Playboy online archive, it is something they may never be able to fully escape. Just as heartbreaking, are the countless porn addicted boys and men (as well as girls and women) who were initially exposed to pornography through the magazine.

The early success and profitability of Hefner’s concept to mass distribute naked women’s bodies quickly spawned copycats such as Hustler and Penthouse, who in order to keep up continued to produce increasingly more “hardcore” content. Nearly twenty years later in the early to mid seventies–inspired no doubt by Hefner–filmmakers began to produce and send to the big screen, pornographic films such as Deep Throat, The Green Door and others that ushered in what was dubbed “the Golden Age of Porn”.  Then, almost suddenly, in the early nineties the proliferation of pornography exploded with the advent of the Internet.  The pornography industry transformed from a handful of prominent magazines and films- to hundreds, thousands and then millions of easy to access websites, each one containing hundreds of individual pages of content. For perspective, in 1991 there were fewer than ninety different pornographic magazines published in America, in 1997 there were about 900 pornographic sites on the Web, in 2011 the Internet filtering software Cyber Sitter blocked 2.5 million pornographic websites.  By now that number has increased exponentially. It is important to see that behind each number is a person. Every woman exposed in a glossy image or high definition film, has a name and a story–and usually that story is a tragic one of prior sexual abuse, abandonment, poverty, coercion, manipulation and the abuse of their positions of vulnerability.

This historic moment is a time to reflect and take an inventory of what damage has been done over the past sixty years through the normalization of pornography– a body count in essence, of the casualties of this war on our sexuality, our children, our families, our marriages, our identity as men and women–and to consider what lies ahead for a generation who are being sexually educated through hardcore violent porn.

As we mourn our great losses, may we emerge from our grief with hope, and a new vision for men and women. A vision for women of a culture that doesn’t require sexual objectification as a qualifier of value and worth– and a vision for men, which sees them not as insatiable, unfeeling consumers of female bodies–but as ones who can protect and love, instead of use and exploit.


On August 11, Amnesty International made an egregious decision by voting to adopt a resolution that blatantly protects pimps and johns at the expense of millions of women and girls throughout the world who are prostituted, abused and trafficked in the sex industry. anmestyBy calling for the complete decriminalization of all aspects of the sex industry, Amnesty International has now essentially declared it a “human right” for men to buy women, for pimps to sell women, and for traffickers to profit off an unhindered demand for women’s bodies.

Although couched in deceptive language that appears to have the intention of protecting the rights of so-called “sex workers,” if one looks behind the thin facade, it is easy to see that this resolution and subsequent policy are attempts to further a specific “pro-sex work” agenda. If Amnesty International claims to protect human rights, this decision has clearly stated to the world that they don’t consider prostituted women to be human.

If Amnesty International claims to protect human rights, this decision has clearly stated to the world that they don’t consider prostituted women to be human.

In order to quickly debunk the myth of Amnesty’s resolution I will list each specific point of the resolution, verbatim, and provide rebuttals that will demonstrate the ludicrousy and hypocrisy of the statements:

The [Amnesty International] International Council requests the International Board to adopt a policy that seeks attainment of the highest possible protection of the human rights of sex workers, through measures that include the decriminalisation of sex work…

First off, the notion of the “highest possible protection” of prostituted women is incompatible with the enabling of pimps and johns to use and abuse women’s bodies with impunity, as is called for in this promotion of a policy model of full decriminalisation.

[The policy will] take into account:

1. The starting point of preventing and redressing human rights violations against sex workers, and in particular the need for states to not only review and repeal laws that make sex workers vulnerable to human rights violations, but also refrain from enacting such laws.

The true starting point for preventing the abuse of those in prostitution is to recognize that the only way to fully protect them is to get them out of prostitution. Research has demonstrated that prostitution is inherently harmful whether legal, decriminalized or illegal. Research has also shown that legal/decriminalized prostitution increases the demand for commercial sex, and thus increases the number of women and girls who end up being coerced into the industry and vice versa.

Legal/decriminalized prostitution increases the demand for commercial sex, and thus increases the number of women and girls who end up being coerced into the industry

Sex trafficking and the serious abuse of women and girls in the sex industry are certainly human rights violations, (which Amnesty is claiming to redress), and the cause is the uninhibited demand, which is a result of legal and decriminalized commercial sex policy models.

2. Amnesty International’s overarching commitment to advancing gender equality and women’s rights.

Supporting and protecting men’s entitlement to women’s bodies is incompatible with the purported commitment to the “advancement of gender equality and women’s rights.” Prostitution is a manifestation of gender inequality.

Prostitution is a manifestation of gender inequality.

If this were not so, then we would see women buying men for sex at the same rate that men are buying women—and we would see men selling sex at the same rate that women are selling sex. Anyone who has any knowledge of the sex industry knows that this is not the case. Men are overwhelmingly those who buy women’s bodies for sex, and the women and girls they buy are the marginalized, disadvantaged, abused, and impoverished. Even the relatively small amount of men who sell sex are feminized (often called “lady boys”), and men are the ones who buy these feminized men. These feminized men are abused and marginalized as well, due to their positions in society as disadvantaged females. This reality highlights the fact that prostitution is a highly gendered injustice, where men are in positions of power as buyers, and women (and feminized men) are the ones being subordinated and dehumanized as merchandise.

By Amnesty advocating for decriminalization of the sex industry, Amnesty is promoting and enabling an institution of gender inequality that works against women’s rights and hinders any meaningful progress toward gender equality.

3. The obligation of states to protect every individual in their jurisdiction from discriminatory policies, laws and practices, given that the status and experience of being discriminated against are often key factors in what leads people to engage in sex work, as well as in increasing vulnerability to human rights violations while engaged in sex work and in limiting options for voluntarily ceasing involvement in sex work.

Decriminalizing or legalizing the commercial sex industry does not remove the stigma of prostitution and the accompanying discrimination. For example, in Germany, where the sex trade is legal, the service union ver.di offered union membership to Germany’s prostituted population. Those in the industry would have been entitled to health care, legal aid, thirty paid holiday days a year, a five-day work week, and Christmas and holiday bonuses. Out of an estimated 400,000 in prostitution, only 100 joined the union. That’s .00025% of those engaging in prostitution. The same phenomenon (not joining prostitution unions) is true in the Netherlands. Legalization and decriminalization never erases the stigma of prostitution and could even make women more vulnerable if they must lose anonymity.

4. The harm reduction principle.

The harm reduction principle is one that acquiesces to the idea that women in prostitution will always be subordinated, dehumanized, bought and sold—and aims at trying to minimize the inherent harms that come part and parcel with the buying and selling of people’s bodies for sexual use and abuse. The problem here is two-fold. First off, by decriminalizing pimps and johns, Amnesty International is actually seeking to reduce any harms for the male buyers and exploiters–not prostituted women.

Under this model, johns and pimps will be able to continue to buy and sell, profit and pleasure, without any consequence or harm to them.

On a public health level the harm reduction model seeks to protect johns from prostituted women’s diseases, not protect prostituted women from the diseases that the men transmit to them. Condom use is rarely, if ever, enforced and study after study has demonstrated that men will pay a higher price for sex without a condom—and pimps who are after a profit will coerce the prostituted women to comply with men’s demands. When STD testing is done to women in prostitution they are often given cards that they are able to show to men buyers to prove that they are STD free. Men are never required to be tested for diseases to prove to the prostituted women that they are free of deadly diseases, which they might actually give to the women they have unprotected sex with. This type of harm reduction public health policy is sexist to the core and not adopted in the best interest of those who truly need protection—the prostituted women. Harm reduction should never be the goal of policy, harm elimination should be—and that should be focused on the ones who are vulnerable, not on those in advantaged positions and the exploiters.

5. States have the obligation to prevent and combat trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and to protect the human rights of victims of trafficking.

You cannot separate prostitution from sex trafficking because they are inextricably linked. Trafficking flourishes where there is a demand for commercial sex and that demand increases when there are legal and decriminalized sex markets.4 Pimps and traffickers will always exploit women and girls when there is a profit to be made.

Pimps and traffickers will always exploit women and girls when there is a profit to be made.

Legalization and decriminalization of the sex industry increases the demand for prostituted women and thus increases the demand for victims of sex trafficking as well.5 The U.S. Department of State “Trafficking in Persons Report,” has stated: “Sex trafficking would not exist without the demand for commercial sex flourishing around the world. Prostitution and related activities—including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels—encourage the growth of modern-day slavery by providing a façade behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate. Where prostitution is tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery.”

The former director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Ambassador Mark Lagon, has said that “prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons. Turning people into dehumanized commodities creates an enabling environment for human trafficking. The United States Government opposes prostitution and any related activities, including pimping, pandering, or maintaining brothels as contributing to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons. These activities should not be regulated as a legitimate form of work for any human being.”

6. States have an obligation to ensure that sex workers are protected from exploitation and can use criminal law to address acts of exploitation.

The truth is that when states adopt laws that decriminalize and legalize the sex industry as Amnesty is recommending that they do, not only do they abandon their obligation to protect prostituted women from exploitation,in fact, they increase the amount of exploitation that they face. An uninhibited demand for sex will produce an uninhibited supply of vulnerable prostituted women.

An uninhibited demand for sex will produce an uninhibited supply of vulnerable prostituted women.

Under the model of decriminalization, pimping is encouraged as there is no consequence for exploitation. Furthermore, exploitation via trafficking is encouraged as well, because an unhindered demand creates an attractive profit for those who seek to exploit vulnerable women in order to make significant amounts of money. Amnesty’s recommended policy seeks not to encourage states to protect the exploited but in fact Amnesty’s policy seeks to increase and encourage exploitation.

7. Any act related to the sexual exploitation of a child must be criminalized. Recognizing that a child involved in a commercial sex act is a victim of sexual exploitation, entitled to support, reparations, and remedies, in line with international human rights law, and that states must take all appropriate measures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

Anyone who has studied prostitution in depth knows that in many, if not most cases, females enter into the sex trade underage. Thus, according to the internationally accepted definition of human trafficking laid out in the United Nation’s Palermo Protocols, most in prostitution entered into the industry as victims of human trafficking. So at what point does Amnesty think that these human trafficking victims magically change into consenting adults? What happens during the moment between when a girl is seventeen (and a trafficking victim by definition) and when she is eighteen? Does she no longer deserve the protections afforded to child sex trafficking victims because she had a birthday? No, the reality is that these are the same people at different times in their lives who deserve the same protections and support. Women in prostitution must be seen in the appropriate light—as those who were exploited at young and vulnerable ages and who got stuck in a system of exploitation, and need help to get out.

Women in prostitution must be seen in the appropriate light—as those who were exploited at young and vulnerable ages and who got stuck in a system of exploitation, and need help to get out.

8. Evidence that sex workers often engage in sex work due to marginalisation and limited choices, and that therefore Amnesty International will urge states to take appropriate measures to realize the economic, social and cultural rights of all people so that no person enters sex work against their will or is compelled to rely on it as their only means of survival, and to ensure that people are able to stop sex work if and when they choose.

This is one of Amnesty’s most ludicrous and contradictory statements regarding those who are being sold in the commercial sex industry. First off, they recognize that evidence demonstrates that most prostituted people enter into the sex industry because of marginalization and limited choices. If they were to simply and objectively look at the research and listen to those who are survivors of the industry (which they did not do and have yet to produce any evidence for their positions), they would easily know that if there were such a unicorn nation where total equality and justice in the economic, cultural, and social spheres was achieved for women, then prostitution would not exist at all. This statement is, in essence, Amnesty admitting that the only reason women enter the sex industry is because they lack equality, social status, and economic status and there are no other legitimate choices for them. A bad choice among worse choices is not a legitimate choice. In addition, exiting the industry once a person is in it is not something that the state can guarantee to any degree as long as pimps operate with impunity—as decriminalization would ensure.

9. Ensuring that the policy seeks to maximize protection of the full range of human rights – in addition to gender equality, women’s rights, and non-discrimination – related to sex work, in particular security of the person, the rights of children, access to justice, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous peoples and the right to a livelihood.

See points above.

10. Recognizing and respecting the agency of sex workers to articulate their own experiences and define the most appropriate solutions to ensure their own welfare and safety, while also complying with broader, relevant international human rights principles regarding participation in decision-making, such as the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent with respect to Indigenous peoples.

If you listen to the outrage of survivors and reputable advocates of women’s rights to Amnesty’s decision it is clear that Amnesty did not listen to the experiences of those who survived the industry. They didn’t allow those who were abused in the industry to articulate their experiences, they ignored them, instead opting to listen to and protect the profiteers.

11. The evidence from Amnesty International’s and external research on the lived experiences of sex workers, and on the human rights impact of various criminal law and regulatory approaches to sex work.

Amnesty has yet to produce this so-called evidence. However, those opposed to Amnesty’s position have been able to produce large amounts of research and evidence from the “lived experiences” of those prostituted and the human rights impacts of various laws. (See points and citations above)

12. The policy will be fully consistent with Amnesty International’s positions with respect to consent to sexual activity, including in contexts that involve abuse of power or positions of authority.

The concept of consent here is moot when a woman is given no other legitimate choices. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your wallet, when you choose between losing your money and dying of a gunshot wound to the head, choosing to hand over the wallet can’t be seen as exercising true agency, consent, and choice—and doesn’t justify the actions of the one who is coercing the “consent.” If a woman has to choose, and thus consent to the abuse of selling her body, or choose to allow her child to go hungry, such a choice is not exercising agency nor true consent.

13. Amnesty International does not take a position on whether sex work should be formally recognized as work for the purposes of regulation. States can impose legitimate 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, provided by law, necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved, and not discriminatory.

It is interesting that Amnesty has decided to present this final clause—to allow states to impose restriction on the sale of sex (basically giving the green light for states to require taxes, paid permits, etc.). BUT they did not even mention allowing for restrictions on the PURCHASE of sex. This final statement is a final nail in the coffin for Amnesty, as it proves they are only interested in protecting those who can profit or pleasure off the sale of women’s bodies (pimps, johns, traffickers and the state). Amnesty has no true interest in protecting those whose bodies are used to make that profit and produce that sick pleasure.

In conclusion, we call on those interested in the rights of women and girls to withdraw support for this sham of a human rights organization. Amnesty International has decided to side with the exploiters, traffickers, and profiteers at the expense of those they claim to protect.

#AmnestyInternational #Shamnesty #NoAmnesty4Pimps #ICM2015