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, you imply the vast majority of prostitutes are not vulnerable. What factors make them vulnerable in your eyes? Drug use? Physical or sexual abuse when younger? Overbearing and controlling boyfriends, aka pimps? The threat of homelessness?

If you believe in the right of all adults except a small subset to do whatever they like, why prevent people for working for less than minimum wage, if that's what they choose to do?

GarthsUncle - I think the word pimp needs to be clarified. The definition of pimp currently covers a variety of characters ranging from a person who uses violence or the threat of it to coerce another into prostitution too the man who lives with a lady engaged in prostitution but does not compell her to enter the industry. The law does, I understand regard the latter as bing as much a pimp as the former which, in my view is wrong. The lady in the first situation would be vulnerable but the present law already offers redress and I can not see how the introduction of a ban on paying for sex would assist her. She clearly needs help but the present law is sufficient.
Many prostitutes calculate that they can earn more in prostitution than in other jobs. Yes some of these are in debt but by no means all. Not all homeless people turn to prostitution so even in this admittedly desperate situation there are other options (E.G. help offered by the Salvation Army and other charities).

Zeffa, you probably lost most of us when you used the word "ladies".

Do you think people at risk of homelessness fall into your definition of vulnerable?

GarthsUncle - The minimum Wage offers a ceiling beyond which no one should fall. Support for it is not inconsistent with a liberal position on sex work for there also there needs to be regulation (E.G. the age of consent in the UK is 16 but the law, rightly sets the age at which someone can become a sex worker at 18). I am not an extreme libertarian but work on the basis that the state or society should steer clear of interfering in the private lives of individuals other than in very extreme circumstances such as where a child is being abused or an animal is being treated cruelly. The bedroom is a private place and the state should not intervene there unless there is clear evidence of underage sex or coercion being employed.

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

No - I provided evidence to the contrary yesterday, but you have chosen to ignore it. You're like a stuck record - just posting the same libertarian drivel again and again.

And now you're getting angry with women for not sharing your political views. Well not everyone is a libertarian, not everyone thinks people can do what the hell they like, and fuck the collateral damage.

There is such a massive amount of evidence of the damage caused to women in the sex trade - violence, coercion, drug addiction- you'd have to be walking around with your eyes shut not to see it.

Yet all you can argue is consent, blah blah, private, blah blah, we're grown ups and can do what we like with our bodies blah blah. No - consensual sex is a private matter between individuals. Soon as you involve money, this changes it somewhat. Soon as you call it 'work' this changes it somewhat.

And to argue that women are safer with panic buttons, and in groups? Are you actually for real?? Why not legislate to remove the thing that causes the panic, the violence in the first place? Criminalise the punter. But no, to you, the punter is king - his right to buy sex comes above everything - and we must install panic buttons in case some of them go ape and start beating or raping a woman...

Lastly, you want us to listen to prostitutes? Well you might want to read the final few posts from a prostitute on the Newsnight brothel thread, who was pimped by a 'friend' when she was desperate - pimped throughout her pregnancy, and 2 weeks after a c-section. I wonder if you'll listen to her?

Zeffa says: 'However I do believe that what consenting adults do in private is no concern of the state.'

'The bedroom is a private place'

Yet he keeps calling prostituted women sex workers and says he wants to see 'ladies working together' in the sex industry.

Zeffa, before you blither on anymore about your principles and morals regarding your right to pay to fuck unwilling women, please answer this question:

In your opinion, is prostitution a private activity or is it work? Keeping in mind that any activity which is recognised by the state as work is, by definition, the concern of the state.

GarthsUncle - People at risk of homelessness are potentially vulnerable, however, as adults if they see prostitution as a way out of their situation they have a right to go down that road. So long as the person engaged in prostitution does so of her own free will the client should not be held responsible for the situation which brought her there. Of course a compassionate human being will feel sympathy but by giving money to the prostitute he may, in fact be helping her to keep a roof over her head and that of her children.

DonkeySkin - Sexual intercourse is a private matter and the state should not dictate what consenting adults can do in private. However the fact that the prostitute receives money for furnishing services is, potentially a matter for the state in that the cash becomes potentially taxable. Some escort businesses already pay tax as do some working women.

Spoken like a true politician.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones - Thank you for making me smile.

Zeffa, would your libertarian view regard the selling of human organs for transplant as acceptable? Eg, if someone was really strapped for cash and was offered money to sell a kidney or a lung? Should society have the right to step in and prohibit such sales?

'Sexual intercourse is a private matter'

Then prostitution, in this definition, is not work.

However, you then say it's 'potentially (weasel word) a matter for the state'.

You are trying to have it both ways. An activity cannot be defined as work and at the same time be considered a private matter.

I am hammering home this point because it's a favourite sleight-of-hand of the pimp lobby to argue that prostitution is simultaneously a matter of private sexuality (and thus there should be no laws against it) AND that it is socially necessary labour (and so should be considered regular work).

The former argument is meant to get people to think of laws against prostitution as analogous to outdated laws against private sexual behaviour like homosexual activity, and the latter is meant to appeal to leftists and the like (as are the lobby groups for pimps 'sex worker unions') and get people to view prostitution as a necessary 'service' sector.

By claiming that prostitution is both these (contradictory) things at once, the wider aim of this doublespeak is to obscure any clear understanding of what prostitution is, that is, to prevent people from seeing what is really going on here.

As Kajsa Ekis Ekman says, the basic precondition for prostitution to take place is that you have someone who wants to have sex, and someone who doesn't. If both people wanted to have sex, nobody would have to pay anybody. Once you realise that the heart of prostitution is people, most often women, having to endure unwanted sex from hundreds upon thousands of men who couldn't care less that the women don't want it, all the guff about it being a matter of 'sexual freedom' and 'normal work' just falls away.

feministcurrent.com/8514/being-and-being-bought-an-interview-with-kajsa-ekis-ekman/

Donkeyskin - the basic precondition for prostitution to take place is that their is a client in need of sexual release and/or company and there is a lady (or man) prepared to offer that service in return for financial recompense. Of course some will argue that it is demand which drives supply. Only choke off the demand by criminalising payment for sex they argue and, hey presto prostitution will decline. This is an odd position as I've never heard it argued that you should criminalise the consumers of hard drugs while leaving the pushers (many of whom are addicts themselves free to ply their trade). It takes two to tango and when two consenting adults choose to dance, whether in return for cash or otherwise it is no concern of the state.
There would be some logic (although I wouldn't support it) where both the sale and buying of sexual services to be made illegal as is the case with the hard drugs market where both buyer and seller are committing an offence. But your position is based on the patronising belief that adult women are incapable of making their own choices and ought to be protected.
Criminalisation has failed as regards hard drugs, it failed in America with liquor and it will fail if tried here.

Zeffa said You had bad experiences in life

Yeah, the misfortune to be born a woman in a world with men like you.

to believe that this gives you the right to dictate to others is arrogant in the extreme

Ignoring the irony of you saying this to me...I guess I must be arrogant because I do believe being negatively affected by prostitution (as a woman in a society that commercialises and exploits women's bodies) means I have the right to voice my disapproval of it.

I believe my right to live in a society that values women as equals trumps men's rights to use prostitutes. They can have a wank, by all means, just not into a woman.

And as I said before, I don't care about damaging the careers of happy hookers. I don't care because what they do damages ME and society as a whole. And I do NOT for one split second believe they are the majority.

As for you saying prostitution is a good way to get yourself out of debt and avoid homelessness...that is disgusting. You've said some pretty foul things on this thread and demonstrated a complete lack of empathy but this stands out. In what world is this ok?

KerryKatonasKhakis - So a man is not allowed to have consensual sex with a sex worker just because you are offended by the idea of him doing so. It goes without saying that you are entitled to your view but what you are not entitled to do is to foist it on the vast majority of sex workers and their clients who participate in consensual sexual activity.
When I read some of the comments on here I here the sound of jack boots coming over the hill for like the Fascist and the Communist there are some who wish to trample on human freedom and sexuality. I find that disgusting.

I am not 'offended by the idea'. I am affected by the reality.

KerryKatonasKhakis - OK, you and I are obviously not going to agree.

. Suppose a group of 4-5 disabled women got together to set up an "insulthel" where prejudiced men could come and pay to go into a room with one of them for half an hour, call them repulsive names, push them around a bit, get them to say how superior said prejudiced man was to them. But it's ok because there's a panic button if the pushes get a bit rougher, or if the names step outside the pre-agreed boundaries.

Do you think that would be a positive or negative step for society? As a disabled person, do you feel, "private space, private actions" about this?

You've read Rachel Moran's book so you are aware that many prostitutors do not have a neutral "paying for sexual release" attitude to prostitutes; they enjoy the power and the feeling that they are demeaning the prostitute. It's not just about "the bedroom".

I call Godwin's. You just lost the debate, zeffa.

Oh, arse, cross posted with Zeffa Godwinning the thread.

I would love you to see you preach about freedom and sexuality to actual sex workers. Suck a crusty dick or starve? Have someone you find physically repulsive pumping away on you?

Sex work has nothing to do with the prostitutes's sexuality you deluded person. It's all about the men. They do not want to sleep with you, they have to. I cannot even imagine why on earth you would want to sleep with someone who didn't want to sleep with you. It is so far removed from real sexuality I just can't fathom it. It's disgusting, desperate, humiliating and pathetic.