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.

Everyone can do links innit:

From a scottish paper an article about this study of 110 Scottish men who used prostitutes. It is very interesting reading.

The key thing for me about this has always been that the men in the study said that there were things that would deter them from using prostitutes, page 26 of the full report.

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?

That's pretty much the punter view, going by the way they talk and what they say online. It's not the feminist view. People should listen to feminsts more and punters less, in my view.

t's about renting their orifices out to people (men) who will exchange cash for access to a body." but isn't that what happens when you strip away the empowering fulfilling yada yada speech?

And anyone who thinks there is no problem with people trafficking in the UK has clearly never watched the news

@NiceTabard that reply was uncalled for.

Some "trafficking statistics" have actually came from phoning up establishments and asking for the nationalities of the women working there. And any foreigners were marked down as "trafficked".

Some escorts on their own free-will travel from city to city to get more business. Some people say they are "trafficked".

My clients are awesome human beings and it was the clients who helped me get back on my feet and into a healthier zone. Clients are being marginalized right alongside sex workers. It simply is not true that every client is a sleaze bag looking to 'use a woman's orifices'. This is the koolaid radical feminists pass around. I now specialize in COUPLES sessions. So I guess you can start putting women in your construct rather than just men. LOL.

I would say that most people on this thread would argue that using a prostitute is one of the lowest things a person can do.

And that the men, women and children who are engaged in this trade around the world are in the main doing what they must to survive. The ones who are really happy with their work - well that's great for them. I'm not sure how that affects the arguments on this thread in any way though, TBH.

"The vast majority of those in prostitution fall within this definition."

Your proof?

Read

[[http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/ the invisible man project rhinoceer

The clients might not say it to the prostitutes face, but they're saying it, and worse, on the punting websites.

Warning, it is a horrifying read.

Read the scottish report.

What do we think of the men who travel to parts of the world where they can easily access children?

Is that a minor, marginal problem? Or is it a fucking massive tourist industry. Hmmmm let me think.

Sorry forgot to put the brackets in.

here

So how did you two find this thread?

rhinoceer and DominaElle.

"some cogent arguments against criminalising men who pay for sex would be more relevant."

Page 38 of
www.hivlawcommission.org/resources/report/FinalReport-Risks,Rights&Health-EN.pdf

quote"Evidence to prove a crime is nearly unattainable. Workers do not consider themselves to be victims and are almost
always unwilling to testify against their clients."

I am also interested to know how a US person happened across MN without apparently any understanding of what it is or where it is based, about this one very topic which strangely often seems to attract new posters from other planets parts of the world.

If it's so difficult to prove and the fact most sex workers are not willing to testify against their clients if they end up in court, it doesn't sound like much of a deterrent does it?

And trying to hunt down tens of thousands of consenting adults would divert attention away from people who really are abusers or victims.

almost always unwilling to testify against their clients." how surprising.

How do we know the content on the invisible men site isn't just made up?

Domina your "clients" sound very charitable. Perhaps other charities are missing out here. Oxfam could get more donations if the donors were able to fuck the recipients. What do you think?

SinisterSal if you were making money would you want your customers to go to prison?

i wouldn't want a punch in the face either. Not rocket science, mysterious stranger!