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.

How nice and sanitized you make men paying to fuck women who dont actually want them sound. That's what most prostitution is about.
ODFO

BriarRainbow - I am not saying it is all nice and sanatised. However someone choosing to enter sex work is still a choice even if it was not their first choice of career which, obviously it is not in the majority of cases. Escort based prostitution is, on the whole safer and "nicer" than street based sex work. How, exactly would you police a ban on paying for sex? With escort agencies the transaction takes place behind closed doors (in homes or hotels mainly) so any prohibition would be virtually impossible to enforce.

By killing all punters. HTH
No, seriously, you don't think the police can find them? Well how do the punters find those escorts if they're so damn hard to find?

So fucking done with PC talk about sex work and consenting adults. Women, and little girls, are suffering out there, trafficked, raped by those pieces of shit who treat them like things that can be sold to other men. I don't give a crap about those very few privileged who want to sell their bodies out of completely free will.

BriarRainbow - Most escort agencies have disclaimers to the effect that "ladies are provided for companionship only and anything else that may occur is a matter between two or more consenting adults". This "plausible deniability" means that the agency is, more or less operating within the law. Obviously if they say that they are providing sexual services then the owner can be arrested for living off the earnings of prostitution. Once the escort is in the privacy of a residence or hotel room the police do not know what is going on (they could be having tea and cakes or having sex). The police can not just break down the door on the merest suspicion that sexual activity may be taking place. Obviously children need to be protected and anyone exploiting them should be subjected to severe punishment but consenting adults is a different matter.

WhentheRed - I hope that prostitution has become safer with the move indoors in Sweden. A number of sex worker organisations have argued that outside sex work has become more dangerous since the ban on paying for sex as the "nice" clients have been frightened away from buying sex from street basted prostitutes leaving those buyers who don't care about the law, who demand unprotected sex and are more likely to be violent. In the days before the law, they argue it was easier for ladies to choose their clients but since the introduction of the law sex workers feel forced to see men they would previously avoided.

Apologies for the typos in my previous message. That is what comes of posting after having just woken up!

Just because things are hard to police does not mean they should be legal. Drink driving, drug dealing, rape, murder...all these do happen, are hard to police and many people get away with them...should we just make them legal

I think it's generally agreed that sexwork is safer indoors.

But I don't think it's just because of the law Sweden implemented in 1999. Before 1999 not many had the internet. Now most people have the internet which allows internet bookings to be made.

Street prostitution has also vastly reduced in UK as well.

@Kerry those are poor analogies. Crimes like rape/murder there is never consent.

filxiler the purpose of Kerry's analogy was to counter the point that the Swedish model would be hard to police, as she made clear in her post. The analogy does not rely on consent. Consent is irrelevant to the issue of whether something being hard to police should affect whether it is legal or illegal.

You're just clutching at straws with your theories of how prostitution in Sweden is affected by the laws there. You're just relying on assumptions to bolster your viewpoint that you want men to be able to exploit vulnerable women for sexual gratification.

Have you checked out any other parts of MN? Baby Names is quite a good one or Style and Beauty.

FloraFox - Prostitution is a victimless crime provided the person providing the sexual service is of legal age and free of coercion. If one looks at the websites of many sex worker organisations it is clear they oppose the introduction of a law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services. They do so on the basis that the Swedish model makes the lives of prostitutes more difficult by, for example frightening away the "nicer" street-based clients leaving sex workers with those who are not concerned with the law and who demand unsafe services such as sex without protection. The difficulty in policing a law (or, in the case of the UK a proposed law) is a relevant factor in determing whether it ought to be introduced where the proposed legislation impacts on victimless crimes. Prostitution is, as I said above victimless where both parties to the exchange are of legal age and no coercion is employed. There are a lot of statements on this thread about prostitutes (mainly women) being forced. In most cases sex workers are not forced, they provide sex of their own free will. Life in the UK on benefits can be extremely hard but people will not starve to death so no one enters prostitution due to fear of starvation which is, sadly the case in some countries. If you asked most people employed to clean public toilets they would, no doubt relate horror stories about the filth over and above the call of duty they have cleaned up during the course of their employment. I can't imagine that cleaning public toilets is anyone's first choice of career any more than working as a sex worker is anyone's first choice, however people clean toilets without threat of force in the same manner that others enter sex work without coercion. I guess that if one asked a working lady who sees nice clients and works indoors whether she would rather clean public toilets or continue in her job, one might well be told that she would prefer to continue in her occupation because it is far better paid than the toilet cleaner and it is more pleasant, (I am talking here of girls who are able to set their limits, E.G. by specifying what services they will and will not provide). Prostitution can have adverse effects on both prostitute and client and proper assistance should be given to those wishing to exit it, however it is, at bottom a choice for many women (not their first choice in many cases but a choice none the less) and people who engage in consensual sex, whether paid for or otherwise should not be penalised.

I don't think punters and sex industry shills are interested in Baby Names and Style and Beauty, Flora. It would be too difficult for them to spread their agenda there.

The examples of drink driving, murder etc are bad analogies as they are not victimless crimes. Prostitution when it takes place between consenting adults is a victimless crime, indeed it ought not to be regarded as a crime at all.

They werent analogies, they were examples of how 'too hard to police' is a pathetic argument.

I find it impossible and distasteful to use analogies with discussing prostitution.

'Consent'? 'Victimless crime'? Oh, please, do some research before spouting such ignorance. Even if the prostitute 'consented' and was happy as larrygrylls the impact of buying women for sex use impacts every single woman in society. It's one of the most victimful crimes out there.

And you should be aware that many laws are there to actually protect us from ourselves...

Pmsl at prostitution being seen in any way, shape, or form as victimless.

0/10 Zeffa.

There is an interesting post from a sex worker who has been raped (but not during the course of her work). She criticises those who argue that prostitution equals rape and from someone who has experienced the crime of rape I think we need to take her extremely seriously, sometimesitsjustacigar.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/gang-rape-and-consent-an-open-letter-to-mary-honeyball/. It is interesting that a number of sex workers who have posted here are told that they are not representative by those who, I suspect have no real life experience of the sex industry. As one sex worker puts it, men see sex workers for a variety of reasons not all of them connected to sex, for example the desire for intimacy often plays a part.

The English Collective of Prostitutes oppose the criminalisation of those who pay for sex arguing that it will make the lives of sex workers more dangerous, prostitutescollective.net/2014/03/03/today-sex-workers-oppose-criminalisation-of-clients/. They are right to oppose criminalisation and Amnesty is correct to contend that people have a right to pay for sex provided that it is purchased from a consenting adult.

No, taking men who buy sex out of the equation will make women much safer. No one has the right to a sex life, be that paid for or not.

CaptChaos - merely stating that taking men out of the equation will make prostitutes safer is not an argument, it is a point of view not backed up by any evidence. Policy making, law etc ought to be based on evidence not on unsubstanciated opions.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - Sex workers need to be protected from bad clients and others (such as traffickers) who would seek to exploit them. However as is testified by the sex workers who have posted her by no means all clients are bad. The way to deal with bad clients is to allow sex workers to work together which is currently illegal under UK law. Women are safer if there are two or more working. Have you looked at any of the sex worker websites which argue that banning payment for sex will make the lives of prostitutes more dangerous? There are many such sites including the English Collective of Prostitutes which I linked to in a previous post but because they don't fit in with your view of prostitution you do, I suspect choose to disregard them. There is a Simon and Garth Uncle song, The boxer which says "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". This is what is happening here as people are refusing to engage with sources of evidence which contradict their cherished views. By evidence I mean hard facts. There are studies out there which show that the Swedish ban on paying for sex has not worked and it has had the effect of forcing prostitution underground and making the lives of sex workers more dangerous. I can post links if you like but if you search on the internet they will be found easily enough. I have read books including that of Rachel Moran which argue in favour of the Swedish model so I am open to other perspectives but have you taken the time to explore the issue from all angles?