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.

Wow. Some here have very hateful attitudes towards men and sexuality. A man doesn't NEED intimacy or love, he just wants to put his dick in a hole. Just say it the way you mean it.

Yes you and I differ greatly. You see half empty I see half full.
You see dirty and I see humanity.

People should be cold and robotic and shut themselves down when their spouses are unable to care for them. Perhaps it would be better if they just up and abandoned the spouse for another spouse (keeping their needs within a traditional construct).

Your moralizing justifies cruelty.

Another thing whenthread, I believe I am the only person in this thread using a name that actually IS connected to my true identity. Whereas YOU are anonymous.

You bring up another issue entirely. THE SPECTRUM of circumstances within the realm of commercial sex. I will not deny that there are extremely unhealthy circumstances especially when talking street level prostitution which only represents a portion of the providers doing any form of sex work. That demographic is extremely vulnerable and exploited. These people are being further harmed by the criminalization of commercial sex and you actually prove my point. Why are these already victimized people (you yourself quoted rape statistics) being further victimized by a broken legal process?! If you were raped would you think being arrested and treated like a criminal would facilitate your recovery and healing process?

"However all it does is suggest they don't know very much about the topic they are supposedly qualified to give evidence about "

So who is the most qualified to give evidence?

And if trafficking was as widespread as some say, why is it so hard to find evidence to say it happens so much?

NT yes, it's quite incredible. I watched the Committee evidence live and when it goes into archive, I recommend everyone watching it. They had a woman from the global unit in London and a woman who is responsible for their trafficking activities and they prevaricated on most points. They avoided all questions on mens rights saying they had no policy on "sex work". They were asked about the process and what they said is not consistent with their public statements.

Briar I admire Amnesty very much but there is a liberal / libertarian foundation for many members' views and this viewpoint on men's rights to sex is consistent with that foundation. I am very disappointed though that their approach is so strongly driven by that ideology. The gender-neutralising language and the focus on the best-off "stakeholders" rather than the most vulnerable is quite shocking.

One of the women who gave evidence has been a sex worker for over 20 years and hasn't met a single person who had been trafficked.

Does that mean she doesn't know much about the topic? Or could it mean trafficking just doesn't happen on every corner like we are led to believe?

'A man doesn't NEED intimacy or love he just wants to put his dick in a hole.
you can't buy love yanno. ask john Lennon. it is buying sex. don't pretty it up, you sound like a rather inept marketing undegraduate

that is rather the point

I thought we had hateful attitudes to people working in prostitution?

Has our range extended???

FWIW I think men who pay for sex are pathetic.

I don't know any prostitutes but I do know plenty of men who have paid for it. Usually in eastern europe on stag weekends. I have a pretty low opinion of them for that.

Of course I am sure that before fucking any of the women for sale in the strip clubs, they were extremely careful to check that they weren't being exploited in any way, naturally Maybe via the form of a short questionnaire?

Oh I do know a couple of people who had sex in return for other stuff when they were younger, I guess that counts? Even if it was only a 1 time / 2 time thing?

I have also been approached twice by men who wanted to pay me for sex, which is rather encroaching into everyday life for women, isn't it. that is not uncommon, judging by a thread the other day.

rhino I'm done with your derailing. You are typical of the pimps/punters we get on here now and then demanding to have your stupid and basic points addressed. The points you've made are entrenched with a backwards looking logic that starts with a man's right to penetrate women and works back from there. Unless you can come up with something more interesting that hasn't already been said before by you or people like you, I'd suggest you look at lots of other threads on this board where these points have been addressed.

Flora fox comparing what I said to someone saying they've never seen a wreck so it must never happen isn't a strong argument.

I started out as a homeless drug addicted prostitute on the streets pretty much. Where do you get off saying I am not qualified to speak on this? Sorry to disappoint you that I don't support your views. I am fully aware that trafficking happens. I am pointing out that people standing on the outside only see what they want to see. Seems you only want to see evil and refuse to acknowledge that this issue is much more complex than you are willing to acknowledge, it's easy to put everybody in one big category.

If only it were that simple.

We want to protect and care for the vulnerable. We want to stand up against exploitation. We want to attack human slavery. How can we do this without further harming people? How can we do this without creating new victims out of consensual sex workers?

This is MY question what is your answer?

Thus far the answers I have been seeing involve harming a group of people to protect another group of people.

What can I say? I think we need to do much better than that!

And again yay flora quite right.

Wheninthered I don't think you get me at all. There was a time I was anything but ok. There was a time had I been arrested it would have harmed me more and made my recovery that much harder. Arresting sex workers (which is the current solution everywhere despite any models) is harmful. Why are trafficking victims being treated as criminals? Why aren't you upset about this fact?

Thus far the answers I have been seeing involve harming a group of people to protect another group of people

the two are not equivelent. Surely you can see that.

While you were a homeless drug addicted prostitute on the streets, you only ever had encounters with respectful men who treated your boundaries with care and you enjoyed a harmonious shared experience of sexual intimacy?

Really?

Christ that's something that most women & girls who aren't homeless, working as a prostitute, or having periods when they are particularly vulnerable (high) haven't experienced! Let alone all 3 combined.

Why are trafficking victims being treated as criminals? Why aren't you upset about this fact?

Christ - we are. that's what the Nordic model is about. Decriminalising the prostitutes, and reducing demand by criminalising the ones with the money/power/options. Do you know what you are arguing against?

Decriminalization would do more good than harm. Criminalizing as well as legalizing causes harm and opens the door to situations such as corporate brothels which we do not want! Please look deeper. Please be willing to look at these issues from all sorts of vantage points. I assure you I practice what I say. I am indeed listening to opposing views and perspectives. Could you do the same?

"Arresting sex workers (which is the current solution everywhere despite any models) is harmful. Why are trafficking victims being treated as criminals? Why aren't you upset about this fact?"

I imagine that everyone on this thread is opposed to trafficking victims being treated as criminals

You're not actually reading the posts, are you?

I'm not disappointed as I don't know who you are or what your stake is in this. If you are a pimp or punter, I would be disappointed if my views would coincide with yours.

If you care only about harm reduction for the vulnerable, I would respect that. But when you talk of the needs or rights of men in this context (for love and intimacy - [snort] ) or if you put the rights of happy, choosy non-vulnerable women before the needs of the vulnerable, I do not respect that.

The "harm" suffered by non-vulnerable women who would find demand for access to their bodies shrunk by criminalisation of punters and pimps and decriminalisation of women in prostitution is that they have to find another job. The harm currently being suffered by vulnerable women in prostitution through coercion, trafficking, abuse (past or present), addiction or mental health is real and on-going. That harm will be reduced by the Swedish model and by the reduction in demand from men to access their bodies for penetration. I won't call it sex because sex is fun where women have autonomy over their bodies. Paid-rape is not fun.

who is your "we"?

You are in a singular position Domina. It's impossible to take your experience as representative. Your perspective is not everyone's - you are vastly outnumbered by the people suffering all sorts of harm. they are not to be dismissed, surely

No where on this thread has anyone said they want prostitutes to be criminalised.

Elle you've been summoned by someone to join this thread to argue against a point no one is making.

You are saying that under the Nordic model sex workers are not arrested? That they are treated as human beings? That the so called Nordic model fixes everything? Uh.........please go back and look deeper.