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.

[AphraBane]

I would definitely support a webchat to clarify this point. DD1 has just joined the junior wing of Amnesty because of their stellar work on gay rights, but I know she's concerned about their stance on termination (which veers a little too much towards rights of the foetus and a little too far away from rights of the woman).

[PleaseJustLeaveYourBrotherAlon]

What if there aren't enough women willing to provide sex?

If you say sex is a basic human right and sex isn't available then you can't criminalize people for taking it can you? If men start raping women as no one is "providing them with a basic human right" you have to afford them the same sympathy you would someone looting a grocery store for food in a disaster situation.

Because there aren't enough women surely who would have sex with men for money who are perfectly mentally healthy/who haven't got sexual abuse in their past/ drug habits/ can feed their children through other means.

And if the women are being paid a decent living wage through the sex work, could the average person living on disability in this country and in others afford to pay them adequately? Or should they also be offering a reduced fee?

may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the rights to free expression and health.

And that.. that is infuriating... What about the health risks brought in to a city by prostitution? The health risks undertaken by PIV or anal sex by any sex worker (even if done "safely" which in many countries it isn't)

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

Claiming it undermines the right to health is just gobsmackingly ridiculous. Sex is very nice but it isn't necessary for health ffs!

[vaudevelle]

To specify that the only morally correct reason for this is that those too unattractive to the opposite sex are having their human rights violated by not being able to get any is so weak. Maybe some sort of government limited-attractiveness coupling service would be a better avenue?

[vaudevelle]

Buffy, I'm not a libertarian (hate the dogmatic drivel that comes with excessive labeling) and my opinion is not formed on this subject. I'd just like some balanced views before everyone demonizes Amnesty.

[Foxred10]

I am absolutely speechless having read the paper. I have donated a lot of money to AI in the past - no longer.

[AfricanExport]

Can I ask a question? I find many of these discussions based on the utopian world view (which is lovely, I agree) to be somewhat devoid of reality.

When you make prostitution illegal you remove many womens chance of feeding herself and her children. Not every country in the world has benefits and our education system. Unless you can solve those problems you surely cannot dictate how these woman provide for their families. Or is it okay if they starve as long as they are not prostituting themselves? I realise that's a No... but that is the option you leave.

There is a much bigger picture here and, although I do get the trafficking etc and yes it's horrendous, I do think that we would simply have less issues globally if we just accepted that this happens (prostitution not trafficking) and focus on the illegal element instead of broad strokes that, although helpful to the law makers, do not actually help the people.

For global problems you need global solutions and we cannot get truly global solutions so all you have is entire countries/ regions in which the 'global solutions' are ignored... hence not global. .. ie worthless.

Men will always buy sex.. and woman will always sell it. It's happened for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands, for all we know). Can we really change the nature of human beings, really? In a generation or two? I don't think so.

It's all very idealistic just not particularly realistic. ..

So I actually agree with amnesty international. Maybe I'm wrong. .. lol it wouldn't be the first time. ..

The war on drugs and the war on prostitution are lost causes. They will never be won. We need to wage war on actual criminals not activities. Focus on the criminal issues around prostitution not prostitution itself, prostitution although perhaps not to our taste, is a valid choice... as long as it's a choice; and that's what need policing.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

AE, is a choice between prostitution and starvation really a choice?

[AfricanExport]

Doctrine. If course not, but that's irrelevant to the here and now. That is the choice many have. Good,bad or in different. That's reality..

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

I know, but you finished your post with "as long as it's a choice" so I was confused.

Shouldn't amnesty be campaigning for sufficient benefits that it's never that choice?

[Tinytv]

I agree with Buffy's proposal for a web chat. Maybe a campaign too.

I am shocked and disgusted by this plan by AI.

[FloraFox]

It's not a choice though, as you've said AE so why did you say "as long as it's a choice" ? How does that work in a non-choice context?

[AfricanExport]

But people do make that choice. High class hookers often have other options. They still do it.

They could but perhaps they realise just how unrealistic that would be in most of the world.. think Africa, China.. It's just not going to happen.. you actually have more chance of winning the war on prostitution than getting global benefits in impoverished nations .

[FloraFox]

AE are you saying men should be able to buy sex from women who are impoverished because some "high class hookers" have a choice even though the impoverished women don't? I'm not clear on the connection between your concern for impoverished women and your concern about the choice of "high class hookers".

[msrisotto]

Twitter made me aware of this utterly awesome keynote speech on prostitution by . I wish I could find a transcript as she speaks SO much truth and it is a lot to take in. I thoroughly recommend you take the 30 minutes time to watch it.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Well put, Buffy. If it was a. "With sorrow, we think we can save more lives now by supporting this but as soon as our other campaigns change the world, we'll change our position" that would be a bit different

(Disclaimer -- have only read first page of scribd link)

[vaudevelle]

But if the men didn't want them for sex, they'd have nothing to sell and their children would starve. In cultures where woman are not given the chances we are there has to be some opertunity for cash to flow womanward. I know this may be an outrageous statement to make but to some it is true.

[MooncupGoddess]

But people defended slavery on the basis that it gave slaves a secure way of life and that without it they would starve. I don't think it's a great argument.