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.

Zeffa, your ideas about consent are completely wrong, a prostitute taking money is NOT consent and if she verbally consents to sex, what do you think happens if she decides she doesn't want to carry on during sex? The man stops, accepts it and leaves politely? OR he continues (rapes her) or demands and expects his money back or she doesn't tell him to stop because she feels like it's her duty to continue and wants to avoid such problems?
The answer is any of the last three scenarios

Can't be arsed to read our latest punter's offerings (seen one punter's views, seen 'em all).

In addition this one has the usual crappy formatting in his mansplaining posts to the mummies - so rude to not even have basic level forum manners AKA, paragraphs.

Anyway, the thing I wanted to say is that even with the sanitizing misogyny invisibilizing language of the punter, the actual gendered power dynamic is so obvious it might as well be in flashing lights saying 'Misogyny. Abuse. Unearned Privilege. Entitlement. Rape Culture.'

It's the use of the word 'service' that gives it away. (And talk of cleaning.)

It's Wifework being outsourced - all men have the right to have a woman pick up after them and suck their dicks. All men have the right to stick their dicks in a woman. All men have the right to be serviced . All men have the right to be sexually serviced .

They think they sound all modern, liberal and not woman hating when they talk in terms of 'services' - when in fact it makes them sound like they are arguing for women to still be considered chattel who service men by providing domestic services, including dick servicing.

They love that word 'service' about as much as they love 'consent'.

They are less keen on 'rape' and 'coercion'.

Damn. Just read a punter post by mistake thinking it was another poster. Although it was sort of illuminating because of this comment;

Rape is sex by fraud or violence, it is, by definition rape. Of course a prostitute can be raped if she isn't paid or a client forces her to do something to which she does not consent, for example coercing her into anal sex when she has indicated that this service is not offered by her. A sex worker is not raped when she receives payment

in which it is made clear that;

a) our visiting punter doesn't actually understand what rape is.

b) despite that he does understand that prostitution is pay to rape because he understands that if the woman is not paid, an act of rape has taken place. And he is OK with that.

Talk about making your position clear. How foul.

A sex worker is not raped when she receives payment

This is incorrect. A sex worker is raped if he/she has not given consent.

A sex worker is not raped when she receives payment

zeffa, even the other punter disagrees with you on that point.

[weseeyou]

I'm not a punter and why do you keep saying "we see you"? Do you have some way to spy on my webcam? If so does my hair look ok?

It means that we see you for what you are.

Do you actually read things before you comment on them?

fil and zeffa sitting in a tree
spouting their misogyny

To the punters who have posted I have a few questions.

• Should people lose benefits should they choose not to engage in sex work? (I appreciate this question was already asked up thread, but seems to have been missed)

• Ignoring the consent issue a moment, isn't their something a little fishy about society stacking lower paid jobs with a disproportionate number of women, and vice versa with men high paying ones, and then harping on about free choice? After all us men have more and better choices than women therefore shouldn't this backdrop play a part of any libertarian discussion of the topic?

• Is it really that hard to find someone to be intimate with in this day and age? You may not be good looking but believe me good conversational skills, wit and charm can win the day. All of that can be learned, and without being an asshole about it either. Besides self improvement is never a bad thing, and who knows the chances of something more long term are much more likely.

nice Sabrina

fil and zeffa sitting in a tree
spouting their misogyny
be even then they can't agree
On how to do patriarch-ee

Flora

Of course no one should lose benefits due to not wishing to participate in sex work. To my knowledge in no country in which sex work is decriminilised are people forced to become prostitutes on pain of losing their entitlement to benefits.

filxiler - If you re-read my comments I make it clear that a sex worker is raped if she is forced to do something to which she has not consented, for example anal sex. What I should have said is that a sex worker, even if paid is raped if she is compelled to do something to which she has not given her consent, for example anal sex.

FloraFox - so you are applying for the position of poet laureate when it next becomes vacant. I will watch with interest to see to whom the position is awarded. I, personally like Ernest Dowson,
"They are not long the weeping and the laughter,
love and desire and hate,
I think they have no portion in us after we pass the gate.
They are not long the days of wine and roses,
out of a misty dream our path emerges for a while
then closes within a dream".
But as Dowson died in his early thirties it would be rather difficult to award the position to him!

Did you mean to sound so pompous?

Did you notice that your other punter pal disagreed with your assertions about rape?

Beachcomber - You are twisting my words. If a prostitute is paid for sex and the client respects her limits then she is not raped. Obviously if the client does not pay her no consent has been given so the sex worker is, by definition raped. There are very many sex workers out there who disagree that paid sex constitutes rape. Granted there are others who contend that paid sex is rape but, looking at the websites of sex worker organisations the view that paid sex is rape is held by a very small number of sex workers.

I don't know the other poster so he is not my pal. He has stated that he is not a punter and I take his word that he is not.

Well that's a second subject you're naive about then.

I wouldn't listen to men that argue vociferously pro-prostitution who say they are not pimps/punters - fil's misogyny just screams through his posts. If he's not a punter - and I think that's unlikely - he's someone not very pleasant who wants to keep women in their 'place' - underneath men.

Listening to sex workers unions like the IUSW about prostitution is like listening to tobacco companies/FORREST about smoking. All they both want to do is maximise their profits and deny any damage done to individuals and society. They all argue about 'liberties' but they really mean their own liberty to make profit.

I won't be participating further in this thread unless any new (and different) points are raised. The discussion appears to be going around in ever decreasing circles. People no my position and I don't see any point in constantly restating it. I will continue to monitor this thread with interest and post should anything new or original be said.

*know

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - There are many independent sex worker voices out there who argue that paid sex does not constitute rape, also the English Collective of Prostitutes which is not controlled by pimps.

How do you know? Are you really that dim?

Oh and before dismissing women's voices on a subject that damages women, perhaps it would help if you actually addressed some of the points made here, rather than ignoring them.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - So any sex worker or sex worker organisation who disagrees with your views is a pawn of the sex industry/pimps. This is a very convenient opinion for you to hold as it allows for the dismissal of any sex worker voices which contradict your perspective for, after all they are mere pawns of pimps and traffickers.
If a law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services is enacted many prostitutes and clients will find a way around it. People will, for example advertise for a companion over the internet without mentioning sex. The client will then meet up with his "date" and will engage in conversation to ascertain whether he/she is prepared to provide more than company. In many cases the answer will be yes and the parties will retire to a private place. Such arrangements would be almost impossible to police and, quite frankly many police men and women would look the other way.