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.

The laws governing the sex industry should protect the most vulnerable in the sector - the trafficked and pimped women who are trapped and desperate.

Those women don't have a voice - the laws need to protect them, not the ones who are at the top of the pile who shout louder.

You are simply looking at this from an angle of 'liberty' and 'consent' - without examining what happens when women in prostitution don't have liberty and don't consent.

You are simply arguing for your own point of view which is that you should be at liberty to fuck women for money- it a shallow and selfish argument.

I won't be participating further in this thread unless any new (and different) points are raised.

ahaa hahahaha ahahahahahaha

It's a bit like mansplaining isn't it? He's man-monitoring the thread

I won't be participating further in this thread unless any new (and different) points are raised.

Ok so you don't believe people shouldn't lose benefits if they refuse sex work. That is a start. Does that mean you are willing to concede the nature of sex work makes it different to just another commodity to be traded or service rendered? Which was your position up thread.

DoctorTwo too

I love this section of MN. It's helped me convince my daughters their views are indeed those held by many feminists. They thought feminists were shouty man haters. Now they know they're not.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - No, I have pointed to sources in support of my arguments, E.G. to a number of sex worker organisations (I believe the majority) who believe that the introduction of a prohibition on paying for sex would render the lives of sex workers more dangerous, (The English Collective of Prostitutes being a case in point).
A number of posters have made the point that the state interferes in many areas of our private lives. This is undoubtedly correct, however the fact that something happens does not render it's happening correct. The state should protect children and those with severe learning difficulties from the consequences of their own actions but, when it comes to adults it ought not to interfere. I would, for example be in favour of looking at the decriminalisation of drugs as, in my view it is not for the state to dictate to adults what they should (and should not) put into their bodies. Also decriminalising drugs would (largely) remove it from the hands of criminals reducing crime (E.G. old people getting mugged by those desperate for their next fix). I won't expand on the drugs issue here as it is off topic and I only mention it in order to answer those who point out that the state intervenes in our lives in a variety of ways currently.
I am proud to be a liberal, someone who believes in the rights of the individual and who is suspicious of excessive state power and of attempts by the community to poke it's nose into matters which pertain only to the individual.

DoctorTwo - By no means all feminists believe that paying for sex should be criminalised. Feminism is a broad church.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - I don't think that it matters whether the views being expressed are those of a man or a woman. Everyone is equally entitled to their perspective irrespective of their gender so, no it doesn't make a difference to me whether the poster is a man or a woman.
I don't hate women. The views I express are shared by many people both male and female, are women who hold the same or similar views to mine woman haters?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - I would advocate giving drugs out free on the NHS provided that those taking them are strongly encourage to reduce and (ideally) cease using them.
As regards being priveleged, I am disabled and know what it is like to face prejudice and discrimination. I am lucky in that I gained a degree and have a good job but many other people with disabilities are not so lucky. I no what it is like for those who come from the wrong side of the tracks.

zeffa - you're clearly a libertarian of the ilk that turns my stomach- I would guess you're a white, able bodied, privileged male, as well - not necessarily- but this sort of libertarianism is usually forwarded from a position of privilege.

For example - you rarely hear people from backgrounds of severe socio-economic deprivation, who have seen the harm that drugs do to people in poverty, and how they ruin lives, argue for decriminalisation of drugs. Posh, rich libertarian media types who occasionally spend friday nights snorting cocaine make this type of argument.

But anyway, I don't want to derail into discussing drugs - I would like to ask you if you believe the age of consent should be lowered?

Giving drugs out free on the NHS has to be the stupidest argument yet.

I suppose we could give women out free on the NHS, for privileged men to fuck too?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - No I would not advocate lowering the age of consent. In the ideal world I would like to see the age of consent set at 18 however, in the imperfect one in which we live many young people are sexually active before their 18th birthday and, on balance I feel that 16 is the best compromise so I would leave it 16. As you probably know it was Booth who, in the 19th century argued successfully for the raising of the age of consent to 16 due, largely to men taking advantage of very young girls by exploting them in child prostitution.
Having said all that, the law is a mess. A 16-year-old can legally move in with their partner, hold down a job and pay tax but they can not legally buy cigarettes or drink alcahol in a pub. If the voting age is lowered to 16 (as some are advocating) we will be in an even bigger mess.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - I would advocate giving drugs out free on the NHS provided that those taking them are strongly encourage to reduce and (ideally) cease using them.
As regards being priveleged, I am disabled and know what it is like to face prejudice and discrimination. I am lucky in that I gained a degree and have a good job but many other people with disabilities are not so lucky. I no what it is like for those who come from the wrong side of the tracks.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - I believe that the Liberal Democrats where correct in their call for a Royal Commission to look into the issue of drugs. Obviously any change in the law requires very careful consideration but the current situation clearly isn't working. Anyway I don't want to go off topic. I think this is a discussion for another thread.
I am off out now to enjoy the sunshine as it is a beautiful day outside.

Buffy - your post at 9.15 is spot on.

And, oh what a surprise - zeffa has now excused himself from the thread. I'm just like, so surprised.

He'll be back later I'm sure. Perhaps, when you do come back, zeffa, you'd like to address the points raised by DoctorTwo - that paying your cleaner and paying a prostitute are not comparable?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - your reference to "opression bingo" is beneath contempt. I mentioned my disability in response to the implication that I come from a priveleged background and have no idea of the real world. Had I wished to play "opression bingo" I could have mentioned the fact of my disability earlier in this discussion.
The reason for much of the exploitation in sex work stems from the legal grey area in which it operates. If women where allowed to work (legally) together in brothels the incidence of violence against them would drop dramatically. This has been seen in countries such as Germany. Prostitution is not in and of itself exploitative.
As for the English Collective of Prostitutes, the people they represent are, I understand largely drawn from street based sex workers, some of the most vulnerable women engaged in sex work. We should listen to vulnerable ladies when they tell us that criminalising paying for sex will render their lives more dangerous.