Amnesty International says laws against buying sex breach men's human rights

[DonkeySkin]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545003/Amnesty-calls-legal-prostitution-Charity-says-laws-ban-people-buying-selling-sex-breach-human-rights.html

The organisation is planning to adopt a position that calls for the full decriminalisation of the sex industry, including johns and pimps.

It is tabling a paper for its UK branch to vote on that says it is a human right for 'consenting adults' to purchase sexual consent from another person (regardless of the desperate circumstances that person may be in, presumably). The paper also devotes time to that latest favourite cover-all for sex-industry advocates, 'the rights of the disabled', as a reason to allow the continuing expansion of the global sex industry with no oversight or concern from governments.

Apparently the human rights of the (overwhelmingly) women and girls who are coerced, trafficked and enslaved inside the sex industry to satisfy the demand from men for paid sex are of no concern.

Oh, sorry - Amnesty does remember to devote a whole two words to this, conceding that prostitution takes place in an 'imperfect context'. That would presumably be the context of a worldwide patriarchy that devalues female human beings, denies them education, safety and fairly paid work, and tells men they have the right to use their bodies for sex regardless of their actual desires. Not to mention, systemic racism, colonialism and exploitative capitalism.

Good to know Amnesty is prepared to stand up for the most vulnerable people on earth - male sex buyers.

Well that was a random bunch of crazed ranting

I was previously unaware that my views are a result of my religious beliefs.

You learn something ever day

JoinYourPlayfellows

Worth pointing out that not all boys and men who sell their bodies will be gay, same as not all women and girls who sell their bodies will be straight.

Sexuality doesn't have anything to do with it, really, as it's not about sex for the person who is selling. It's about renting their orifices out to people (men) who will exchange cash for access to a body.

People seem to get squeamish though (not you, others) when it is pointed out that men who accept money to be penetrated by other men aren't necessarily gay.

I think it makes people feel uncomfortable as it underlines the fact that for the person selling, things related to consensual sex - desire etc - have nothing to do with it.

Agree tabard. I actually had a man who was defending prostitution who when he was asked if he would be happy to be paid for a man to use his body for sex, said he was not gay. Totally missing the point.

There are plenty of lesbians who are prostituted by men. And straight men who are prostituted by men. The point is if these individuals actually wanted to have sex, they wouldn't have to be paid. They are paid so taht consent is not deemed necessary.

I agree with you Julia. This libertarian nonsense has really permeated into lefty circles and it needs to stop. It's fundamentally right wing and consumerist. It's based on notions that we are all equal participants in life and all choices are equally valid. It's no coincidence that libertarian and liberal ideologies were developed by rich men to obtain power from powerful men.

Prostitution is not the exercise of agency, it is the sale of agency, the giving over of sexual autonomy to another person. The myth of happy hookers have glasses of champagne then spending the night having great sex with Richard Gere entrances the media and the discussion of prostitution. The reality of life for women in prostitution highlighted in the Invisible Men Project or the Der Speigel article on flat price brothels in Germany paints a very different, very grim picture.

If lovely happy hooker prostitution for women with choices and not affected by poverty, lack of education, abuse (past or present), substance abuse or coercion has to stop to end the demand for the women who make their "choice" in what Amnesty describes as the "imperfect context" then that's an reasonable outcome. Pro-pimp lobbyists seem not to realise this is something that happens in every aspect of our lives. Our rights are constrained by others' rights based on societal values.

www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/northern_ireland/

Amnesty about to give evidence

OMG! The policy originated in a motion brought to AGM by Douglas Fox, an escort service owner, through Newcastle branch.

Amnesty WTF
I'm so shocked and disappointed by this.

Amnesty getting a strip torn off by the committee

Are there a lot of United Kingdom posters here? A number of you keep using the word 'bloody'. If so, it makes more sense why you are not getting how decriminalization is healthier than arresting people. You live in a police/surveillance state. In your region of the world people are going to jail for criticizing officials, never mind caring about basic human rights.

How many of you here have actually been trafficked or worked in the adult industry yourselves? Any of you?

When I was working as a prostitute had I been arrested it would have been the straw that broke the camels back. It would have made my journey to recovery (I had hit rock bottom) extremely hard if not damn near impossible. For starters I wouldn't be able to get a regular job with such a thing on my record (therefore would likely be forced by that circumstance to stay a prostitute) and who would want to rent to me if it was seen on my record that I had been arrested for such a thing? What do you people not understand about this?

It seems that many of you really don't care about the actual impact that these laws have on actual human beings.

You believe as you do and that's that. Never mind what actually works or doesn't work as long as the legislation appeases your personal sensibilities.

The VAST majority of sex workers are not being forced by pimps. The vast majority of sex workers are people simply trying to survive. Are anti trafficking efforts creating jobs? working to eliminate poverty?

No. It's about punishing whores. It's about punishing adults who engage in commercial sex. Buyers and sellers. Who is at the front of this push? Predominantly Christian faith based abolitionists and feminist abolitionists. Ideologies all the way.

When a so called solution allows for people to be harmed, it is not a solution. Social engineering should never be motivated by ideologies.

Are there a lot of United Kingdom posters here?

Given your last post, Domina, I'm guessing you're not from the UK, which is fine, there's nothing stopping you posting on a UK site about something at all. It also seems that you broadly agree with the Nordic Model. You should know that in the UK it's not illegal for women to be prostitutes within certain parameters. You say we should do some research, might I respectfully ask that you do the same before accusing posters on this thread of beliefs they don't have, and ideologies they don't subscribe to. I fear though, that my answer is just going to instigate another rant from you, despite you having no clue what I or anyone else on this thread knows, thinks, feels or has experienced.

You live in a police/surveillance state.

So, you don't live in the USA then?

Douglas Fox is also a sex worker himself. He may own an escort agency and be a member of IUSW but that isn't a valid reason to discredit the IUSW.

I agree with Amnesty. I don't believe criminalizing or hunting down consenting adults will solve any problems.

There are already laws in place in the UK and Ireland to cover trafficking, rape, underage sex among other crimes. Effort should go into enforcing these laws effectively instead of wasting time with what consenting adults are doing in hotel rooms.

I believe trafficking has been hyped up into a moral panic. We have already had massive enquiries (including operations pentameter 1 and 2) and raiding flats and brothels all over Britain to find all the alleged traffickers and came back almost empty-handed.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

There is a lot of confusion to what sex-trafficking actually means. It means someone has been forced into the sex industry. It has nothing to do with distance or being foreign. Just because a sex worker is not local does not automatically mean he or she has been trafficked.

The recent proposal to criminalize the purchase of sex in Scotland by Rhoda Grant received a lot of support from feminist and religious groups but did not receive much support from sex workers themselves. (only 3 out of ~63 sex workers who responded to the consultation were in support, and this included groups such as the IUSW.)

In summary here is what I believe:

-Sex-trafficking claims by tabloids are heavily exaggerated.

-Criminalization of buying and/or selling of sexual services is not widely support by sex workers themselves.

"Are there a lot of United Kingdom posters here?"

Well, this is a UK-based board, discussing a specific motion up before the Amnesty UK AGM. Let me think for a moment whether there might be a lot of United Kingdom posters here... Did it really take you nine posts before that crossed your mind?

And I'm reasonably sure that no one on this thread thinks that prostitutes themselves should be criminalised; that's a position that's almost unheard-of in feminist circles. Support is, by and large, for the Nordic model; you dismiss that very briefly by linking to the front page of the London Review of Books blog (which was very interesting, because there was an article I hadn't read on the new Cambridge Edition of Virginia Woolf, but I suspect that's not what you were aiming for) and then go back to ranting about how criminalising the selling of sex (a position that no one on this thread supports) will stop ex-prostitutes getting a regular job or renting an apartment.

I wonder why newbies who don't even seem to know what site they're on come here to write pro-prostitution posts.

"Support is, by and large, for the Nordic model"

Among feminist groups yes. But it doesn't appear to be popular among sex workers. You know, the people who know more than anyone about sex work and the people most affected by laws in place.

"I believe trafficking has been hyped up into a moral panic."

This is meaningless (at best), dismissive (at worst).

The line "moral panic" is applied in situations where usually right wing commentators (press MPs etc) try and get people's knickers in a twist about something that is really quite harmless.

That is a wholly inappropriate phrase to apply to the idea of people being upset at the thought of human trafficking. Which is quite obviously not harmless and is a quite sensible thing to get your knickers in a twist about if you have an ounce of humanity about you.

If you read the news you will also be aware that people are frequently being released from forced labour, all over the UK, from doing all sorts of things. There is an item in the press about it here at least once a week, you must have noticed.

I had hit rock bottom after a devastating life event. I was 36 years old. I had begun to self medicate and had become addicted on top of my devastation. I had no desire to live and was purposely on a mission to die. I consciously told myself "surely this (being a prostitute) would push me over the edge into oblivion. After all, being a prostitute is the lowest thing a woman could do." Isn't this what society says? Prostitutes are dirty, filthy, damaged, broken, garbage, they've been violated and used by men who only see them as objects not human beings. Isn't this the common belief?

My comment to myself is confirmed by nicetabards post above:
Sexuality doesn't have anything to do with it, really, as it's not about sex for the person who is selling. It's about renting their orifices out to people (men) who will exchange cash for access to a body.

This is a perception, a projection, an opinion. Ironically comments like that are most often stated by a person who has never engaged in any form of sex work. Such a comment in my construct equates to violence towards sex workers. Talk about objectification!

The reality of sex work for many sex workers is very different than what nicetabards has described.

Another post here described how sex workers just tell themselves they like doing sex work when they really don't. I'm certain this does happen and I myself have pointed this out. In fact, I feel very passionately that sex work should only be engaged as a vocation by people who want to do it and who enjoy it. Money cannot be the primary focus for doing sex work in my opinion. Regardless arresting people is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to healthy solutions.

Arresting and targeting clients is futile.

In the end the bottom line you aren't fixing ANYTHING and you are only complicating everything.

It is very easy to sit behind a computer spouting opinions.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

Just in case you missed it.

"There is a lot of confusion to what sex-trafficking actually means. It means someone has been forced into the sex industry. It has nothing to do with distance or being foreign. Just because a sex worker is not local does not automatically mean he or she has been trafficked."

And just how fucking stupid do you think posters on MN are, quite frankly?

What a load of old shit.

"It's about renting their orifices out to people (men) who will exchange cash for access to a body."

This rather degrading comment is the sort of comment supporters of the Nordic model will say. It's not something I've seen or heard a sex worker or client say.

To quote rhinoceer: There are already laws in place in the UK and Ireland (and the USA where I live) to cover trafficking, rape, underage sex among other crimes. Effort should go into enforcing these laws effectively instead of wasting time with what consenting adults are doing in hotel rooms.

I added the parentheses

I concur!

"Among feminist groups yes."

Like.... oooh, I don't know.... the "Feminism/women's rights chat" of a popular women's forum?

If someone is trying to convince posters in such a forum that their position is wrong it would be helpful to start by tackling the position they actually hold, rather than a completely different position that they don't. If you believe that the moon is made of green cheese I'm not going to get very far convincing you that it isn't by explaining in emotive terms that it clearly isn't made out of diamonds.

Please feel free to carry on with dozens of posts explaining why criminalising prostitutes is a bad thing. It won't achieve anything on this thread, where everyone already agrees about that, but if it makes you happy.... However, if you want to actually change anyone's mind then some cogent arguments against criminalising men who pay for sex would be more relevant.

So far we have "it's futile" ((a) evidence? (b) then why is it such a problem?) and that it doesn't seem to be popular with current sex workers. And something to do with the London Review of Books.