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.

Blistory Sun - Yes, Mill wrote The Subjection of Women arguing for female emancipation, however he also believed in the right of individuals to use their bodies and minds as they see fit, including the right to engage in prostitution as is shown in his essay On Liberty.

All punters are scum, no exceptions. A person who has sex on someone who does not want to have sex with them is a disgusting reprehensible creep.

I guess you've just disproved Mill's theory that liberty is not just for the purpose of allowing selfish indifference.

Mills disagreeing with your principles:

And in the second place, the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man. Laws and systems of polity always begin by recognising the relations they find already existing between individuals. They convert what was a mere physical fact into a legal right, give it the sanction of society, and principally aim at the substitution of public and organised means of asserting and protecting these rights, instead of the irregular and lawless conflict of physical strength. Those who had already been compelled to obedience became in this manner legally bound to it. Slavery, from be inn a mere affair of force between the master and the slave, became regularised and a matter of compact among the masters, who, binding themselves to one another for common protection, guaranteed by their collective strength the private possessions of each, including his slaves

I am an Amnesty member and have spoken to many other feminists who are members. Most of them are horrified at this proposal. If this is passed, I will be cancelling my membership, as I am sure many others will be. Because Amnesty will clearly be saying that prostituted women, should not have human rights.

FloraFox - Fine, you think all punters are scum. I disagree but it is your right to adhere to that position.

Of course you disagree - being one you would have to. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Blistery Sun - I don't believe that the passage quoted from Mill signifies disagreement as you imply it does. Mill argued, in On Liberty that over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign. Sex workers are (if not coerced) sovereign over their own body and mind as are clients. Mill believed that it is not for the state or society to interfere in actions which purely relate to the individual concerned or to those with whom the individual has reached an agreement. Prostitution is a self-regarding act in that it relates to the sex buyer and the sex worker with whom he has entered into a voluntary arrangement for the purchase of sex. It would become an other regarding act if it caused a public nuisance.

This kind of self-serving bullshit is why I am not a liberal.

FloraFox - "This kind of self-serving bullshit is why I am not a liberal." What are you then?

Two things -

Mills doesn't think you know women - "we may safely assert that the knowledge which men can acquire of women, even as they have been and are, without reference to what they might be, is wretchedly imperfect and superficial, and always will be so, until women themselves have told all that they have to tell"

Secondly, I'm a liberal feminist so I agree with the theory and principle that a woman can use her body freely, in any manner that suits, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That being said, it does not give YOU the right to freely use a woman's body. It's insulting that you think that we have yet achieved a society where women have been liberated such that they can engage in prostitution freely and willingly. Whilst women continue to be subjugated to men, there is no choice and therefore no validity in claims by men like you that women are exercising choice. Pretty basic stuff for someone claiming to have liberal principles so which bit don't you get ?

It took a lot of guts to right what I did

Rubbish. As you say, you are a person without shame. A person who feels no shame has no problem admitting to actions which would shame any decent human being.

As for being able to sleep at night, there have been an awful lot of really nasty people throughout history who sleep the sleep of babes because they don't give a toss about their fellow human beings. So don't congratulate yourself on your lack of insomnia.

It's the decent ones who lay awake worrying about the horrible stuff that goes on and the horrible things that happen to people.

Flora, he's not a liberal. He's typical punter who uses selective political writings that he thinks support his point. A more nuanced reading clearly shows him to be wrong but you know what the average comprehension skills of a punter are like.

Blistery Sun - Other women/feminists disagree with you. Sex workers who describe themselves as feminists contend that they do, in fact exercise choice in their work. You disagree but yours is not the only opinion neither is mine.

Why do you keep typing Blistory's name wrong zeffa?

zeffa (this is my last post to you)

Your conception of what constitutes 'sex' is simply bizarre and unthinkable to most people on this thread.

In your view, a woman's active desire to participate in sex is not a necessary component of sex. In fact, since you are a serial punter, you prefer your sexual encounters to be only about your desires. Man enjoys sex, woman endures it ('provides a service', like a cleaner).

People who realise that their sexual partners are equal human beings with their own desires, needs and wants would recoil at the thought of paying their partner to endure sex they have no active desire to participate in, because the partner has an urgent need for money. Such an encounter is simply not good sex, because we consider it a mutual act that necessarily involves mutual desire and pleasure, not a service that one person provides to another.

To most people (yes, even most men, because most men are not punters) there is nothing sexy about having sex with someone who is only tolerating your presence and your touch because you have paid them to do so.

grimbletart - I have harmed no one, in fact my money has helped a number of people to clear their debts. I am off to bed soon and will look in on this thread tomorrow.

Oh dear, back to that one ?

Women do not tell the truth to their oppressors because their lives depend on them lying.

Women do not tell their oppressors the truth when they are beaten, raped, hungry, trafficked, drugged and scared. And when you hold in your hand the only money that they have access to, they will lie in order to get that money.

It is a truly desperate state of affairs and one which renders prostitution immoral, reprehensible and beyond human decency. That would be the true liberal view just in case you were wondering.

you know what the average comprehension skills of a punter are like

Yes, I agree blistory. It must be difficult to read properly through the dick filter.

You didn't really answer my questions zeffa but that was of no real surprise.

That prostitutes have confided in you stories of their past sexual abuse and yet you still happily continue paying them to fuck you is grotesque. That you then attempt to paint yourself as the hero of the piece by suggesting that it could be worse, they could have to sell themselves to some really nasty pieces of work is gob-smacking and genuinely one of the most shocking things I have read for quite a while. You know of their history and yet you still continue paying them to fuck you and you regard that as you doing them a favour What a monstrous sense of entitlement you have.

One final thing before I sign off for the night - I have worked in a number of organisations over the years. In a couple of those places there were men who were known to go with prostitutes (usually on overseas business trips). Everyone thought these men were sad, seedy, inadequate and slimy individuals although, usually, the staff were at least polite to their faces even though we all desperately tried not to get involved in any conversations about that subject. I, along with many others, simply did our best to avoid them entirely. I wonder what your friends really think about that side of you.

I have harmed no one, in fact my money has helped a number of people to clear their debts

The delusion is strong in this one.

Donkeyskin - I have had experiences with sex workers where the woman has derived genuine pleasure. Admittedly these have been few and far between but they have, genuinely happened. Obviously I hope the woman will derive pleasure from sex but if she doesn't, as a sex worker derive pleasure then she has been compensated for her trouble.
What others think of me on this thread is not a matter of concern to me. I care about the opinions of those close to me and they don't regard me as a bad person. is not

I wonder if he tells those close to him about the time he fucked the sex abuse survivor.

HowardTJMoon - My friends are old friends so I know absolutely what they think of me.
Quite frankly I don't give a damn what people on here think of me, including you.

I care about the opinions of those close to me and they don't regard me as a bad person.

They might do if they knew you'd paid to fuck someone who was abused as a child.

Howard no one close to zeffa knows his foul little secret. I can pretty much guarantee it, especially about him further abusing an abuse survivor. His mother, father, friends and colleagues would all, if they are humans, despise him. It's all done in secret, which is part of the reason he doesn't want to be criminalised, he'd be terrified of getting caught, and his seedy and deliberate abuse of women exposed. The other part of the reason he doesn't want to be criminalised of course is so that he can continue to exploit and abuse vulnerable women and girls.