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.

Sweden's Independent Inquiry into the Sex Laws

Let's talk about the Netherlands, where it is legalised:

"5.7.5 The situation for women in prostitution
According to the evaluation carried out in 2007, it is impossible to say whether the situation for prostitutes has improved since the regulation was put into place, in spite of the authorities’ efforts to protect them and improve their situation and legal status. Apparently, legal status is generally unsatisfactory for persons who work in prostitution and it is difficult for them to protect their rights in practice. As for their working conditions, practical differences still exist compared with other employees. In most cases, business owners do not want to accept any
employer liability.

...The evaluation also reports on a survey that used a number of criteria to compare the sex sellers’ emotional wellbeing in 2001 and 2006. The results of the survey indicated that their wellbeing had deteriorated in all respects. These findings correspond to other results, which show that persons in prostitution experience growing anxiety and that their use of
tranquilizers has increased. Apparently, the prostitutes were also less satisfied with their incomes in 2006 compared with 2001. "

According to Simon Haggstrom it is not at all difficult to detect indoor prostitution.

To find punters, they just need to find prostitutes. If punters can find prostitutes, they can.

It's a moot point anyway - just because a crime is difficult to detect, it doesn't mean it should be legalised.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - You can find prostitutes but proving that payment for sex has taken place is virtually impossible in most cases where the activity takes place indoors.
Philosophically I have a problem with the state or society telling consenting adults what they ought and ought not to do in private. I don't want to live in a country where the police prie into the private lives of consenting adults. That smacks of the Gestapo and the KGB not of a free society.

Zeffa, we've already touched on detection. I was talking about illegality. You contend that:

"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"

I will substitute the word 'shame' as I don't think that's the key point whihc is that "making the purchase of sex illegal will mean fewer people purchase it"

Some people break the law because they think it's a stupid law, or they are showing off, or they are desperate or whatever. Those people might not change their behaviour when a "new thing" is made illegal and those people probably are driven by risk of detection when selecting a crime. So they shoplift from the corner store not in front of the Tesco's security guard, or whatever,

I think that many many people though prefer not to break the law even if they don't think they will get caught. I could name you half a dozen routes and times around my area where the risk of being caught drink driving is miniscule. Doesn't mean that people go and do so on those roads.

If something is illegal, attitudes towards it change, more slowly or more quickly in some cases, but change they do. Making the purchase of sex illegal along with a media campaign about the harm it can cause, similar to those that show the harm drink driving can cause? I think there would be fewer p*nters, fewer people who try it a couple of times, fewer people who do it on a stag do for a laugh, absolutely. Would it be eradicated? No, no crime ever is. Would it be reduced? Yes.

zeffa - do your research. Listen to what Haggstrom says.

The men found visiting prostitutes are offered a fine on the spot - most accept this. If not, it goes to public criminal trial. Being a punter is seen as a very shameful thing in Sweden (yet another way that the Swedish laws work.) Most men want to avoid this.

These laws work.

Sabrina, when did Sweden change the law, do you know?

Don't forget - these men have been caught red-handed by the police. They are on the spot. They tend to admit it.

Did you know that men who have their houses raided at 6am nearly always incriminate themselves? I know a detective that does these raids. They all say 'oh, you're here about the xyz aren't you?'

Anyway, I'm off out to have a real-life social life now. I'll look in tomorrow. Happy International Women's Day everyone!

I think it was 1999, Garth.

Don't bloody patronise me, Zeffa by totally ignoring my actual points and trotting out the same inaccurate argument that legalising brothels will make it safer in a way that assumes I know fuck all about anything.

Stop bloody trying to differentiate between 'good' punters and 'bad' punters. They're all fucking bad, but the violent ones do not disappear if you legalise brothels, all that happens is more punters appear. They know it's legal, acceptable, normal. Huge increase in demand, huge increase in supply...more trafficking, more criminal activity. How can you not see this?

Yes, it will be hard to police, yes it will be imperfect because some men will break the law. There is no evidence to assume they will be more violent or abusive or less. Yes, of course there will be shady 'escort' meets, you don't need to explain to me like I'm a silly children the lengths pathetic, desperate men will go to to get a shag...I already know.

But, IMO, it's not about catching every last punter once buying sex is illegal. It's not about immediately completely stopping all illicit prostitution. It's about sending a message that buying sex is not tolerated in this society. We will not sacrifice vulnerable women (and men) to be used by men for sex. No woman should have to work with the risk of abuse, rape, STDs, pregnancy and psychological trauma. Our women are not to be viewed and used as sex objects. It goes against and equal society and it makes me sick to my stomach that people like you expect women to remain the sex class; available to be bought and used just for an orgasm. And please don't try to pretend it's ok because men can differentiate between whores and non-whores because that argument is bloody disturbing.

As an aside, I find it incomprehensible anyone can compare sex work to any other work. I have worked in care, I have cleaned, I have worked with potentially violent clients. I have wiped bums, cleared up vomit and blood, been struck etc. But I had Health and Safety, adequate training, staff support, a contract, dignity, respect and options to leave. I never risked pregnancy, STDs, working alone with Schroedingers rapist, explotation, psych trauma. I never had to kiss someone with halitosis, lick smeg off a mucky penis, risk a prolapse, have to deal with repulsive strangers putting their penis into my body. How can you not see the difference? Why don't you consider it? Yeah, you're going to say you're not gay...well newsflash: prostitutes do not fancy their clients!! If they did, they would consent to sex and there would be no need to pay. You are being compensated for not consenting.

God that was long, but your bloody entitled musing have pissed me off beyond belief. You can well afford to muse because it isn't you being catcalled in the street etcc.

It's being somewhat intellectually dishonest to parade out a minority of women who engage in sex work with seemingly no ill effects. I do not doubt that there are some, and of course their voice is important in the debate, but that doesn't cover up or excuse those that have been coerced, raped or even those who have come to the profession as minors and/or against the backdrop of abusive backgrounds. You also maybe surprised to learn that there are also ex sex workers who are voices against it.

What is bothering me with this discussion is how you present your position as the only reasonable one. Essentially people should be free to do what they want should be the only factor that matters, and that it would be impossible to police etc, sex workers would be safer with full decriminalisation. All of which I could get behind, but that is not the only interpretation of the data surrounding the subject, and it only seems to work if one ignores significant voices surrounding the debate.

The scenario you presented, limited as you presented it is yes I could hand on heart with a clear conscience shop my friend. They would be making me complicit in their criminality and trying to force me to support choices I am not comfortable with. My friends know my position on these sorts of things. If someone confided it to me now with its current legal status, it would prompt a lot of questions from me about their self esteem and wether they felt unable to secure female companionship on their own merits, and I would support them get to a position in their life where they could.

The tragedy here is that if we had better education for youngsters about relationships how to treat prospective partners with respect, support on emotional and sexual development I suspect a lot of these issues like rape, prostitution etc would be greatly reduced.

'Philosophically I have a problem with the state or society telling consenting adults what they ought and ought not to do in private.'

Then you agree that it is not, in fact, work, zeffa? You can't say that prostitution is a private matter that the government has no interest in and at the same time argue that it is labour.

'... if we had better education for youngsters about relationships how to treat prospective partners with respect, support on emotional and sexual development I suspect a lot of these issues like rape, prostitution etc would be greatly reduced.'

I agree Derval, although I don't think it can be done just through education programs.

We need a complete revolution in how men view women and sex. If we could get to a place where a woman's active desire was considered a necessary condition for sex to take place (not just her reluctantly given or otherwise coerced 'consent') then we would be getting somewhere towards eliminating rape and prostitution.

if we had better education for youngsters about relationships how to treat prospective partners with respect, support on emotional and sexual development I suspect a lot of these issues like rape, prostitution etc would be greatly reduced

Completely agree Derval And if we normalise and legalise prostitution we teach children that sex isn't about consensual fun and respect, intimacy, even love...it's about money. Grim.

x post Donkey Completely agree.

You can't say that prostitution is a private matter that the government has no interest in and at the same time argue that it is labour

Exactly Donkey What about Health and Safety, the Equality Act etc. No way can brothels conform with these if they actually employ the women. It will be more like strip clubs, where the women are self-employed (thus exempt from employment law) so will have to pay the brothel owners to work there.

Can you imagine a brothel that is an equal opportunities employer and does full risk assessments and provides adequate PPE and training?

I doubt many punters would go for that. It's a moot point though because the hazards involved in sex and such close physical proximity are so great and the risks of them occurring too high that it would be deemed unsafe. Because it is.

Kerry, great post.

Also.... if decriminalisation means that women will be safer because they can work in groups to protect each other, which by the way is a vile way to have to work, no one should be expected to have to group together to protect themselves from male entitlement to rape and abuse them, then can you point to evidence which says that there has been a marked reduction in violent crime against prostituted women in Germany? The Netherlands? Thailand? Don't bother to try, because it's not true. Most brothels in Germany merely rent rooms or floor-space out to women which has to be serviceable, but that is where their commitment to them ends.

You admit that it isn't work like any other kind of work, you admit that women are harmed by that work, why can you not see that criminalising the people responsible for the harm is the best way forward, along with helping women who are trapped and want help to leave? What kind of person wants to trap women into a situation they know to be harmful?

KerryKatonasKhakis - Well it makes me angry that you feel you have the right to tell consenting adults what they can and can not do in private. Also you patronise the many sex workers who argue they are not being exploited. You have had bad experiences in life but to believe that this gives you the right to dictate to others is arrogant in the extreme.
Banning paying for sex is an iliberal measure because it entails interference by the state in a highly personal matter, (what adults do with their own bodies) which the state has no right to intervene in. Such a law shows contempt for the very many women who voluntarily sell sexual services as it implies that they are poor pathetic creatures incapable of making rational choices, who need to be protected from themselves. Its noteworthy that when sex workers have posted her contradicting this patronising stance they are shouted down as unrepresentative.
There is a great deal of evidence out there that prohibiting paying for sex doesn't work and makes the lives of sex workers more dangerous but you chose to disregard it because it doesn't fit in with your authoritarian view which would treat grown women like children who are incapable of making rational decisions about how to conduct their lives.

CaptChaos - I don't agree with your view that ladies working together does not make them safer. It is illegal in the UK for this to happen and the fact that the overwhelming majority of sex workers wish to be allowed to group together indicates that a change in the law would render them safer.
We are not going to agree on this issue as we are approaching it from totally different angles. You appear to want to treat grown women as though they are incapable of rational thought, children who need to be protected for the consequences of their own free choices. I, on the other hand believe in the freedom of the individual to pursue their own choices in life, a view based on a deep respect for the value of the individual and their sovereignty over their own bodies and minds. Yes there is exploitation but it is the exploitation which should be focused on not the consensual sex between consenting adults.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist - I am angry and saddened at the exploitation of some engaged in prostitution. However the exploited are a minority who need to be protected by the authorities vigorously pursuing them. It is the vulnerable minority who efforts should be concentrated on, while the vast majority of sex workers and their clients who enter into mutually beneficial voluntary exchange should be left alone.

There are brothels which have panic buttons in the rooms which sex workers can activate if they fear assault. I find it amazing that you and others are choosing to disregard the views of sex workers on this issue, namely that they ought to be allowed to work together for their own safety.

Zeffa, do you also disagree with the minimum wage?

Dervel - I agree good education about relationships is crucial. I have never said that prostitution is the ideal relationship between people (I should imagine that this is very much a minority position)! However I do believe that what consenting adults do in private is no concern of the state. This view is based on my deep belief in the importance of the indivual, their primacy over their own lives.
I am aware that some former sex workers adopt what is usually referred to as the abolotinist position. I have read Rachel Moran's book (among others) in which she describes how she entered prostitution at 14 or 15 (I don't have the book in front of me so can not check the details). People like Rachel need to be listened to but so do the very many sex workers who do not share her view of the industry.
Well I wouldn't report someone for paying for sex unless it entailed them abusing a child or someone they knew to have been compelled into prostitution. I couldn't sleep having done that.

GarthsUncle - Your question about the minimum wage strikes me as odd as I said that I pay my cleaner at a rate above the minimum wage. No, I support the minimum wage.