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.

So.... not only do you want to continue to have the right to fuck women who don't want to fuck you, but you also think that people with learning disabilities shouldn't have the right to self determination.

Nice work zeffa. Well played.

vulnerable ladies

They're vulnerable because of those that would exploit them. Including those that would fuck them for money. The nordic laws seek to protect them, not to allow them to be exploited and fucked for money.

Tackle the demand.

CaptChaos - You are twisting my words. Many people with mild learning disabilities are more than capable of making their own decisions, however if you have an adult of 20 who has the intellectual understanding of a very young child then, of course a civilised society will place restraints on what that person can do and on what others can do in relation to him or her. It would, obviously be wrong for an adult to have sex with a 20-year-old person, with the intellectual understanding of a very young child as, like the very young child the person with severe learning difficulties would not understand what they where consenting to.

I didn't twist your words at all, so do give over.

Interesting that you're only interested in the sex aspect of things though. So 'people with severe learning difficulties' can't consent to sex, but vulnerable women with no choices can, as long as you pay them for that consent which renders that consent invalid ethically

Zeffa It is not just an act between consenting adults (although I and many others obviously don't even believe it's that). It's legitimising an attitude that women are for sex and can be bought and sold.

This attitude already exists among many men (and women) but continuing to legally allow punters to buy the use of women and legalising facilities to make it easier for the men will exacerbate it. This has a huge negative impact on all women in society. It is a dreadful message to send out.

There have been 5 incidences in my life where older men have offered me money for 'sexual services'. Each time has made me feel disgusting, vulnerable and humiliated. One time made me frightened for my life; I was a 14 year old in my school uniform when a car pulled up and they threw a pound coin at my head and said they I owed them a blow job.

Do you think decriminalising and legitimising prostitution will lead to an increase or decrease in these incidences.

Do you think the Nordic model would lea to an increase or decrease in these incidences.

I don't care about ruining the careers of happy hookers. I care about removing vulnerable women from sex work and improving the status and safety of women in society. I also want the full force of the law to stop and punish men who fuck women who do not want to fuck them.

KerryKatonasKhakis - The evidence I have seen indicates that the Nordic model makes the lives of sex workers more (not less) difficult. As I said in an earlier post, street based prostitutes have reported the "nicer" clients being frightened away leaving working women feeling forced to chose clients who demand unsafe sex or are prone to violence (this group don't care about getting caught).
In sweden there has been an increase in indoor prostitution which is more difficult to police.
When a client calls an escort agency he (and the agency) will not (usually) discuss sex due to concerns about law enforcement agencies monitoring the conversation so even if the authorities are keeping tabs on the activities of escorts all they will hear is someone asking for a companion to visit him or her. Once the escort is in the home or hotel room of the customer the authorities have no way of knowing whether sex or merely companionship is being offered, consequently any law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services would be virtually impossible to enforce other than (perhaps) at street level.
The police are already burdened with attempting to police the unpoliceable, for example anyone who walks through a town or city will smelll pot being smoked quite openly despite it being against the law to smoke it. In the same way that many people disregard the law on smoking weed so will many others disregard any law banning the purchase of sex.
It has been stated by some here that making the purchase of sex illegal will shame people into not purchasing it. I don't believe this is the case, it hasn't stopped the purchase in Sweden and it won't if introduced here.
Law and justice are not always the same thing. You can legislate to make it illegal to pay for sex but if many people believe the law is unjust (as it would be) then they would break it.
Allowing women to work together in brothels would help to minimise danger as the presence of witnesses would act as a deterent to violence and other unacceptable behaviour.
Clients as such are not the problem, the problem stems from abusive clients. Few (if any) people would argue that textile mills should be closed due to sweated labour. They would, instead argue for the regulation of the industry to ensure so far as is possible that exploitation does not take place. The same applies in the sex industry.
I don't agree that prostitution leads to women being regarded merely as sex objects. Respect can (and does) exist in many instances between sex worker and client.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - If a lady is being forced by a pimp to furnish money this is already against the law, prohibiting the sale of sex would not so far as I see it make any difference as regards pimping.

Thanks for your kind word Buffy looks like I got ignored after all!

Sorry to hear of your disability Zeffa, I suspect that may be at the root of all this? The problem I have and in some ways your argument does seem wise and reasoned if you corden off the debate and only look at it in the terms you outline.

Unfortunately this situation does not exist in a vacuum. I would not have a problem with prostitution or pornography because I do not see sex as something inherently sinful or immoral, but and there is an almighty but coming we seem as a species to have made the whole area of what should be a defining aspect of our own humanity a sordid, mess of objectification entitlement and in the minds of many women (and some men) a source of great fear and worry.

I suspect in some ways we have some common ground, I agree whole heartedly that the age of consent could well work better at 18, and I suspect that your position comes from a tacit awareness of the predatory nature some men have and express towards young girls. This is essentially my problem. This predatory subtext that seems to be entrenched in the male psyche and to some extent the equivalent thought form in some women that they are objects to be pursued which exacerbates the issue.

That predatory element does not suddenly and magically become acceptable to me just because a woman becomes 18.

Liberalism comes up a lot in this debate as a shield used to justify free choices, but where I have a problem with this is that the meaning of liberalism is freedom, and women at least when stood side by side against men are most certainly not as free as men. Therefore we cannot ignore the circumstances around which women make their choices until such time as there is genuine parity between the sexes. To me it is the essence of liberalism that leads me to this conclusion.

CaptChaos - Yes you did. I said initially that people with severe learning difficulties need to be protected. I never said all people with learning disabilities require this protection. If you re-read what I said you will find that this is accurate.
Most of us unless we are extremely rich need to work to pay bills, mortgage and/or rent and few are lucky enough to be employed in their ideal occupation. Consent is consent irrespective of whether the person consenting relishes their occupation. It is, of course wholly wrong for a client or anyone else to use force or the threat of force.
I believe it was you who said that the analogy between my cleaner and a sex worker is not a valid one. Granted cleaners do not perform the intimate roles of sex workers but the analogy is still valid. I do, incidentally pay my cleaner above the minimum wage.

Dervel - I respect your position but can not agree with it.
I agree that society still has some distance to go as regards equality not just between men and women but also as regards ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. However sex workers and clients can be equal so long as they are both of age and they treat one another with respect. The handing over of money implies a market transaction. In return for payment the sex worker performs a service, both buyer and seller are consenting parties to the transaction.
My stance on this issue stems from research coupled with my reading of that great 19th century liberal, John Stewart Mill's essay On Liberty. I believe that Mill is essentially correct that there are two kinds of acts, self and other regarding. Self regarding acts which affect only the individual or those with the individual has contracted are no business of society or the state, while other regarding acts are subject to state interference. I believe that prostitution is, when it takes place between two consenting adults a self regarding act and as such should not be subject to interference by the state or society although I accept that what one person regards as a self regarding act may be viewed differently by another person.
Arguably if the welfare safety net was adequate and students where not burdened with debt prostitution would be less prevalent. There needs to be more help for those wishing to exit prostitution but for ladies who wish to remain that is, ultimately a matter for themselves.

We will have to agree to disagree with your contention that twisted your words. It makes you happy to think I did.

So, you're going back to the paying for consent is what work is all about thing now. Ok, let's go with that then.

If prostituted women are just doing a job, and you want that to be deregulated, then it becomes, in your theory, just another job, like cleaning work. If a person can be made to do a cleaning job or face losing benefits or other sanctions, including societal ones, then it follows that you should believe that a person should be able to be made to undertake prostitution or face similar sanctions. Unless of course you're not being entirely truthful and you know that it's not just another job, but does in fact represent the exploitation of women. I realise that to see it like that might make your punter moral high ground look shaky, but that's how it goes. Further, if it is just a job, should men be forced to do it too, or lose out, or do you think that it's just women who should be used as fucktoys by men? Shouldn't men be made to have their orifices invaded by other men for money, if they are on benefits and they aren't lucky enough to have a degree? If not, why not..... Remembering that this is just theoretical and I am aware that apart from once, this has never been tested of course.

CaptChaos - No people should not lose benefits if they refuse to engage in prostitution. Prostitution is a job but due to it's particular intimate nature it can not be viewed in exactly the same manner as other work. It is, none the less work.

Zeffa, ok the disagreement between our positions aside I think we are closer to a consensus on some things. However I'd like to zero in on some elements of your position I am struggling with.

You do state that the intimate nature of sex work does make it different up to the point that people shouldn't lose benefits for not choosing to engage in it, but not to the point you are willing to to challenge its status as anything other than another transaction between consenting adults. Why one and not the other? I perceive a cognitive dissonance between the two especially when you take the position that many people do not do jobs they enjoy, but because they have to, surely feeling as though one has little choice but to do something so intimidate changes the landscape of that choice somewhat?

I would also point out that along with students, there are those who enter into it through addiction. Also many sex workers are single mothers who are desperately trying to provide better lives for their children, now aren't we as a society failing utterly and comprehensively when we allow that to stand? Now I don't doubt there are a fair few women who make that choice and stand in front of their clients as equals, but isn't the sheer fact that so many are in a position that they have to sell something so intimate indicative that equality is the exception rather than the rule?

Another point on the nature of sexual intimacy I really want you to consider carefully. We are men we penetrate and don't do the penetrating (usually), there is a disconnect between our sexual lived experience and that of women's. This might not seem significant to you, but just consider the ramifications, you are writing off the intimate nature of sex as a service based on your experiences as a male. Please please please just consider the possibility that the reaction you are getting from women on here relates to an element in all this neither you nor I can be familiar with, and as such why it is crucial you listen.

The evidence I have seen indicates that the Nordic model makes the lives of sex workers more (not less) difficult. As I said in an earlier post, street based prostitutes have reported the "nicer" clients being frightened away leaving working women feeling forced to chose clients who demand unsafe sex or are prone to violence (this group don't care about getting caught).

I don't know what evidence you've been looking at but this is not the case, according to Simon Haggstrom of the Swedish police, and Sweden's own government report.

In sweden there has been an increase in indoor prostitution which is more difficult to police.

Also not supported by the evidence of the Swedish Police or government.

Plus - intercepted communications have indicated that Sweden is not seen as an 'attractive' place for sex trafficking because of the strong sex laws. And who wouldn't want sex trafficking to be reduced?

Dervel - I take the point you are making, both of us are men and as such our experience can never be that of a woman. I am listening to the women on here but I find that many of them are refusing to listen to other women (for example sex workers who have posted here) who challenge their view that paid for sex should be criminalised. Anyone who disagrees with this particular brand of feminism is either labelled as a "punter" or a sex worker who does not truly represent the lived experience of those engaged in prostitution. Yes penetration is very intimate and some sex workers will not offer the service (for example they will offer hand relief but not penetrative sex). Kissing is also incredibly intimate and, again some sex workers refuse to kiss while others are happy to do so. There are also those who will allow penetrative sex but not allow kissing so the situation is extremely complicated. No one should impose their views on others. Just because many women on hear believe that paid for sex, penetrating a women having paid for a service is wrong, it does not imply that their perspective is that of all women. It clearly is not.
Yes, you are correct some people may feel so desperate they regard sex work as the only way out of a dire situation, for instance providing for their children. However other people in dire situations take low paid work or subsist on benefits as working as a prostitute would never cross their mind or, if it did they would be revolted by the idea. I don't think that prostitution is revolting but clearly some people do and it it is their absolute right not to engage in it. Ultimately sex work is a choice unless you are having a gun held to your head or you and/or your children would starve without engaging in it (I mean the mother, not the children engaging in it of course)! We are not in that position in the UK. Life on benefits can be very hard for people but the welfare system prevents starvation unlike countries such as Thailand where there is little if any safety net.
Let me ask you a question. Let us imagine that you have a close friend who has always been there for you through thick and thin. He has supported you and your family (if you have one) during very difficult times. Suppose that this person confides in you that he pays for sex. Would you (in the event that paying for sex is made illegal) report him to the authorities? Could you really do that with a clear conscience? I am assuming here that you know that your friend only sees those aged 18 or older and that they are not forced into prostitution.

Zeffa, what makes you think something being illegal doesn't discourage a large number of people from doing it? Not all, of course, but many.

I'm sure if, for example, drink driving over the limit wasn't illegal, more people would have several pints and drive home than do now.

I am assuming here that you know that your friend only sees those aged 18 or older and that they are not forced into prostitution.

Here's the problem with this statement - no punter can ever be sure that a woman hasn't been forced into prostitution (trafficked/coerced women don't tend to announce it to punters) or that they are over 18.

Yet another problem that I have with punters.

And - I know the question was for Dervel - but whether or not you'd report a friend for a crime (benefit fraud is a case that often comes up on here) is a very personal decision. So I wait to see what you are going to do with the answer.

Sabrina - I don't know whether you have seen this report by a Swedish academic who interviewed Swedish sex workers, petraostergren.com/pages.aspx?r_id=40716. The interviewees reported that the prohibition on paying for sexual services had made their lives more (not less) difficult. A search of the literature will reveal many other challenges to the official Swedish government line.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - If sex work where legalised it would be easier to check for age of people working in brothels etc. Trafficking is wrong and it is forced prostitution (not the vast majority of sex work which is entered into voluntarily) on which resources should be expended.

You link me to petra ostergren?

Please.

Trafficking has shown to increase where prostitution has been decriminalised. Why do think that is?

Also, sex traffickers don't find it attractive to operate in Sweden. Why do you think that is?

GarthsUncle - Much prostitution (unlike drink driving) takes place indoors so is extremely difficult to detect. I don't doubt you are right. If drink driving where allowed you would have an increase in people drink driving, however drink driving is relatively easy to detect while paying for sex is, usually very difficult to prove. Remember with an escort the client is, officially at least paying for the escort's time. What happens behind closed doors is virtually impossible to prove. Also escorts are very unlikely to inform on clients as they are their bread and butter.