Under the pretext of wanting to safeguard the human right of self-determination for women around the world, certain conservative advocacy groups in the US have historically supported attaching conditions to the distribution of financial aid in the fight against AIDS in other countries. For example, the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has included provisions requiring foreign organizations to adopt policies explicitly opposing prostitution to receive funding.
No, I am not personally in favor of brothels, street-level sex work, or any other form of the organized sex trade. I do not frequent sex workers, as I believe the experience is of inferior quality compared to consensual sex with a non-commercial partner.
However, I oppose the US government attaching such strings to AIDS aid, because it smacks of typical political maneuvering.
Yes, forcing women into prostitution, keeping them in brothels through debt bondage, or restricting their freedom in any way are criminal acts that ought to be stopped by law enforcement, with perpetrators brought to justice.
However, laws that deal with such crimes already exist in most countries. The agenda behind such aid distribution proposals is arguably not to improve law enforcement in poorer nations. If that were the primary concern, there would be stronger leverage through other routes, and the focus would be on more severe crimes, such as murder.
I hold that murdering a woman is a worse crime than forcing her into prostitution. From forced prostitution, a victim can potentially be rescued; there is no such redress if she has been murdered.
Critics argue that the concern of certain conservative groups in the US government is not solely to protect people from the worst crimes, but also to restrict sexual freedom. Furthermore, it is argued that the US government pursues an anti-sexual agenda not just abroad, but also at home. This perspective points to the fact that, for example, sexual harassment cases often receive disproportionate media and institutional attention compared to violent crimes like armed robbery or murder.
I do not advocate sexual harassment. However, critics argue that blowing sexual harassment out of proportion has the net effect of desexualizing society. In cases of doubt, men may hesitate to approach a potential partner rather than risk a sexual harassment scandal.
And to put the brakes on the sexual expression of men is precisely what critics claim is the hidden agenda of these conservative groups.
Another example is the strict interpretation in the US of what constitutes rape. I am entirely against raping women. However, critics argue that a highly expansive interpretation of what constitutes rape has a net effect beyond actual rape cases.
Because it is relatively easy for women to accuse men of rape, and because civil lawsuits can be financially lucrative when the accused men are wealthy, critics claim that many men in the US, especially wealthy ones, now think twice before pursuing casual sexual encounters.
An example of the strict interpretation of date rape laws: Assume a man meets a young woman at a nightclub. They have a few drinks, then head to a hotel room. There they kiss passionately and have exciting foreplay, including oral sex. Of course, all of this does not give the man the right to penetrative sex without explicit consent.
A traditional interpretation might have been that if the woman were against a sexual relationship, she should not have followed the man to the hotel room. And even if she did, she should have made clear from the beginning that she did not want any sex.
However, the current strict US interpretation of what constitutes date rape makes men who pursue a promiscuous lifestyle vulnerable to accusations and potential blackmail. What if the woman in the above example, during passionate embraces, says “no need to go inside” but at the same time proceeds with encouraging behavior, such as kissing the man’s neck? What if she even records her words while they are spoken, using a sophisticated cell phone, just to have proof?
Some legal commentators have even suggested that men should obtain written forms of consent from their dates agreeing to sexual intercourse.
Yes, you can regulate the fun out of sexual relationships, which critics argue is precisely what certain conservative groups in the US government try to achieve.
Perhaps in the near future, the US Congress might declare it an offense to use the US postal service to solicit extramarital sex, or it might become a crime to use interstate radio waves for the transmission of explicit words. This is often cited as a potential slippery slope in combating internet pornography.
These conservative groups in the US government are also perceived to target free sexual expression in poorer developing nations, using the human rights of women in prostitution as a pretext.