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.

Yes I was exaggerating to suggest a point, I'd much rather have sex for money with a man I find unattractive than donate a kidney! No matter what logic used to get to that example, I think it needs revisiting.
As there was no logic supplied regarding giving blood and surrogacy I'll assume they're a stock response around these parts.

Florafox I was just trying to remember the name of that project.

Please please everyone read it. Read the words of these men. It is heartbreakingly eye opening.

They say things like "FFS she barely looked at me seemed like she spoke no English, wouldn't even do XYZ, seemed like she didn't even want to be there" etc etc

Oh oh, I found a transcript of Catherine Mackinnon's speech here: Trafficking, prostitution and inequality. For anyone genuinely interested.

We are amnesty members.

Unless they can assure me this isnt their position! they'll get no more of our money!

Good point made in this statement spaceinternational.ie/public-statements/

AI’s position directly contravenes long established human rights conventions. It is at odds with several key UN instruments including the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Prostitution of Others, which holds that prostitution is ‘incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human being'

I live in a country with legalized prostitution. Infant there is a very large brothel opposite my DIY store. They have open days, where anyone can go and visit, talk to the workers etc.

For the sex workers in these "institutions" for want of a better word, they pay tax, social payments, pensions etc and have the same rights as any other employee and work in a safer environment where they agree to their sexual limitations. (these are advertised on their website). They have just raised the legal age of sex workers to 18 to cover child protection.

All sounds very safe and fair in principle of course.

What worries me is that there is still a presence of Eastern European gangs operating in the country. It's a lucrative business still. In a free market (if we are looking at this as a cold commodity) this just drives up the competition. But the gangs aren't just going to shrug and throw in the towel because they can't compete with shower facilities, hot tubs and the "girlfriend experience".

They are going to offer something the brothels can't - cheaper girls, younger girls, more choice, unprotected sex, degradation. There is usually only one way to do this, which usually results in exploitation.

I also worry about the normalization. Why should I have to explain to my DS8 what the History Club is? If it's such a normal process what's to stop people getting the mindset that if it's legal, it's simply a regular acceptable thing to do?

We also have these sex boxes open last year. The whole idea is to protect the workers, offer shelter and a security guard. They cost a fortune to build and maintain. But there is already news that the German versions have closed as they were being run by Eastern European gangs. So to me, it's like we've just paid for their premises.

Infact, not infant. Apols.

msrisotto, excellent read, aside from the trafficking debate, maybe prostitution should be banned in countries where, due to lack of alternative supplied by the patrirchi, it equates to serial rape of woman.
Very interesting choice of structure also, she worded both sides very carefully.

Artexmonkey, it would be very easy to suggest that prostitution could be equated to back massages and physiotherapy, which would be the analogous equivalent of your argument. Why didn't you choose those examples?

Oh but I would agree that the man "right-to-sex" concept angers me beyond belief.

In cultures where woman are not given the chances we are there has to be some opertunity for cash to flow womanward.

Yet in a previous post, Vaudevelle, you were claiming that (paraphrasing) 'men have always bought sex, and women have always sold it, it's been that way for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands'.

So if both statements are true, women would be a lot richer than they are - surely some of that cash from thousands of years of prostitution would have flowed 'womanward' by now. If the sex industry enriched women, rural Thai women would be among the wealthiest demographics in the world.

The idea that prostitution is a solution to female poverty is a delusion. In fact, it entrenches it, because it is both a function of and a contributor to their low status, and it also happens to be among the most dangerous occupations in the world, exposing those in it to extreme levels of male violence, disease (including AIDS), PTSD and drug and alcohol addiction to cope with the dissociation needed in order to do one's 'job'. Among prostitutes in Mumbai, for example, the average life expectancy is 30.

Throughout history, women and girls have never lacked the right to be prostituted - they lack political rights, they lack education, they lack recognition of their bodily integrity, they lack recompense for the real work that they do - which is most of the world's work.

So the men have a human right to sex yet the women don't have the human right to feed their children without spreading their legs.
Urgh

"I would agree that the man "right-to-sex" concept angers me beyond belief"

But you think a man has a HUMAN RIGHT to buy sex from a consenting adult.

A HUMAN RIGHT?!

To buy something?!

A human right?

So does a man also have a human right to buy a television under your bizarrely misunderstood concept of libertarianism?

There is no real separation of prostitution and trafficking. MacKinnon cites a legal definition of trafficking which basically says any prostitute who has a pimp is trafficked, so we can't set trafficking aside...there is barely anything left if you do.

And the woman just said that banning prostitution and decriminalizing it both make it worse, so no, I wouldn't ever suggest banning it, but I would propose the Nordic approach. Oh, and where is society not patriarchal?

Although i have never used the hackneyed "it's been going on for milenia" line as you say. I totally agree that woman choosing prostitution serves no long term purpose. What I have said has been pretty rational, I think.
Maybe a few of you should learn to accept dissonant voices and some actual debate might occur. It's not a healthy place if only the party line is allowed.
Oh and I've been typing on my phone so apols for any typos

Joinyourplayfellows, please don't get so upset that you straw man me, it's pretty weak

stealthpolarbear not sure I said that, intact a couple of posts above I said the opposite. This is all a bit extreme actually.

I just read the first page of the link (policy overview) and I don't think that is real.

Main points that jumped out:

"Amnesty International understands the imperfect context in which individuals choose to become sex workers (or miners or foreign domestic workers)."

Why the random equivalence with miners and domestic workers? In the policy overview? If they have stuff to say about those occupations then I would have thought it would be covered in the main body, or associated docs. Presenting an equivalence of working in prostitution to working in mining or domestic work (foreign? to who? are local domestic workers not ever exploited?) is odd. That whole bit it odd.

Also:

"Amnesty International considers children involved in commercial sex acts to be victims of sexual exploitation, entitled to support, reparations, and remedies, in line with international human rights law. States must take all appropriate measures to prevent violence and exploitation of children. The best interests of the child should, in all cases, be a primary consideration and the state should preserve the right of the child to be heard and to have his or her views given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity"

Hmm right well that's a lot of flannel. Their views? About what? Sure Amnesty International would be a bit stronger than saying it "considers" children involved in commercial sex acts etc. Wouldn't they say they ARE? And NOWHERE in that portion does it mention anything to do with the people who have sold their services, or bought their services. ie the people who have pimped them out, and the people who have raped them. A little bit of an oversight there, surely?

I cannot believe that this document is real.

If it is then YES people should withdraw their support because this is just a bunch of random incompetent shit.

The talk of restricting a mans access to sex as being discrimination also sits very badly with me. For some reason it reminds me of the I bought her dinner so she owed it to me defence, it is all about the man and what he wants, his rights.

It's not the reasonable responses, buffy, it's the hostility at a non-accepted opinion. Oh, and have you noticed the actual insults and mis-quotes above many of my posts. I've been pretty restrained actually.