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.

It is a hugely gendered approach - a basic human need for men as buyers, a purely commercial transaction for women as sellers.

Yes, that's exactly it.

I like the way whenever they talk about people buying sex in the article, they refer to men or women buying sex. Which also carefully whitewashes over the clear sex differential in these "consensual transactions".

It is a hugely gendered approach - a basic human need for men as buyers, a purely commercial transaction for women as sellers.

And yes this this this.

I hope Amnesty is proposing this in the hope of ending laws that oppress sex workers and enable corrupt policemen, for instance, to exploit prostitutes, or that make prostitution more dangerous - e.g. outlawing brothels so that women selling sex are forced to work alone.

Not sure this paper is going to achieve that, though.

I believe the Nordic model is the only one that represents an advance for women in prostitution. IMO Amnesty should drop all the stuff promoting the rights of men to buy sex and focus on the rights of sex workers - female and male, fwiw.

You can phone Amnesty UK and protest at this. Maybe ask them how they are going to consult with members? i am a member and maybe we need to go to the AGM and protest?

This is an incredibly misogynistic document. It is totally about men and their right to buy women's bodies. I have been angry about it all day.

I think a lot of people have a very blinkered view of prostitution, they think we fully decriminalise and all will be wonderful, good access to healthcare, security etc, it's all unicorns and rainbows. But prostitution is rarely about sex, why else do high profile individuals with everything to lose get caught in a back alley with a cheap prostitute? There are plenty of safer places for them to get sex, a woman I know used to be a high class prostitute for such men, but they do it for the thrill, danger and power. Take that away and they'll move onto other forms which are even more dangerous for the women concerned. Plenty of men are turned on by a resistant woman apparently, but it's not rape because they paid.

BTW the former prostitute I know is a lovely lady, beautiful and will state any day that she did it for her, she was in control, empowered and earned a lot of money. She also has the most crippling low self-esteem of anyone I have ever met and is unable to form functional relationships, she moves from one abusive situation to another. It is a desperately sad situation.

That is very sad Princess.

I know lots of women who have been prostituted. Most are feminists who clearly see it as abuse. The friend I have who isnt a feminist was abused at home, ran away and lived on the streets, and ended up being prostituted as a homeless 14 year old.

I get sick of people who know nothing about the realities constantly defending this as a choice.

While each of the countries that has adopted the Nordic model are reporting the results they've desired, Europe is a borderless place. I'd be interested to see if they have resolved the problem or driven it elsewhere.

Whilst I'm sure they have probably reduced the Swedish opportunist punter, Latvia for example is only a short trip away for a weekend of cheaper, more plentiful and poorer girls.

How can they be sure they've curbed the problem, and not just driven it to more desperate places with less robust police resources?

I've read a lot of these "review" websites, to a lot of men it's like taking a fucking spa break, the way they talk about a search for value for money, willingness and beauty for their hard earned cash ...cheap trips to EE are the way they get what they want, without fear or retribution.

Apologies for going off topic, but I just wanted to mention that a certain punterish website is now posting on twitter. You know, incase you wanted to post any thoughts ever?

I am not a member of ai, but might have to join just to threaten to leave. It is hard to believe that an organisation I respected has come up with this damaging drivel.

If you are a member, you have a right to have a vote on whether they adopt this policy or not.

I'm pretty much disgusted by this. The policy reads like an exercise in fuzzy whataboutery.

I don't have time to read all the cases referred to in the policy, but will do tomorrow, if I find the time. I suspect they can be distinguished on the facts from prostitution, like the issue another poster pointed out earlier about conflating a consenting same-sex relationship with the buying and selling of sex. These are two separate issues.)

I'm going to cast aside the flaws related to the policy's naive view of what legal prostitution will entail. I can't add anything to that debate other than disgust.

The policy states that the criminalisation of prostitution may jeopardize the woman's right to freely chosen gainful work (Article 6, ICESCR).

The right to freely choose gainful work is being misunderstood here. The women, by the criminalisation of prostitution, are not being prevented from freely choosing gainful work. Casting aside the question of whether female sex workers can/do make an active choice and the issue of sex-trafficking, the criminalisation of prostitution, in theory, does not prevent individuals selling their labour legally. A woman could get another gainful, legal job (this is, obviously, not always possible, which begs the question of whether she is freely choosing prostitution or not). Article 6 is designed to protect people from being barred from getting a job because of their national or ethnic origins, or religious beliefs for example. To take AI's position to the extreme - does the criminalisation of heroin mean that drug dealers are deprived of their right to freely choose gainful work (some of them even CHOOSE to be drug dealers and make loads of money amirite lol)? No. No it does not.

Idiocy.

I just wanted to add, the policy suffers from a fatal logical flaw. Sex workers human rights are being broken, but not because prostitution is illegal, and decriminalising prostitution will not solve the problems sex workers face.

IMO Amnesty should drop all the stuff promoting the rights of men to buy sex and focus on the rights of sex workers - female and male, fwiw.

One thing I find interesting about the AI document is how unabashed it is about its decrim position being about the needs and rights of johns (the massively dishonest gender-neutral language aside).

The trend these days for sex-industry promoters is to disappear the johns entirely, and talk about why decrim/legalisation is needed to protect people in prostitution. The logic they use is that because people (overwhelmingly women and girls) in prostitution are exposed to gross levels of violence and disease from johns and pimps, decriminalising those same johns and pimps will solve the problem. By this same elision, feminists who oppose the legalisation and normalisation of the sex industry are increasingly said to be responsible for the harm inflicted on prostituted women by the buyers and pimps.

The Amnesty paper also presents across-the-board decrim as an inevitable package. It does not mention that virtually all feminists agree that people who sell sex should not be subject to any criminal penalties - the point of disagreement is over the criminalisation of pimps and johns.

Does the paper refer to "pimps" and "johns" or is there another reason why these terms are so often used? They just seem a bit out of place compared to the generally formal English used (not out of place regarding prostitution, obviously)

Have you not read it Vaudevelle? Seems pretty bad form to be staunchly defending it otherwise.

Genuinely thought I missed it.
And the defence was a positive assumption where AI are concerned, I just wanted rational debate before the pitchforks and torches came out. A reasonable stance, yes?

Seeing as the discussion is about prostitution then the references to Pimps and Johns are not out of place are they Beth? Or do you prefer us to use that neatly sanitised language of sex workers and clients? The language that hides the blatant gender divide and power imbalance.

So come on tell use why your fiancée you think prostitution is so wonderful? The 'I have the right to sell my body' defence will not work, you do have the right to sell your body that is not disputed, but why should men have the right to be a woman's body at all? How is that their human right?

I look forward to your contribution to the debate.

Oh and whilst not always considered incorrect anymore the frequent starting of sentences with 'and' is annoying and a massive giveaway to your identity Beth. Try and mix it up a bit for your next nick name, maybe try doing some reading and learning some critical thinking skills too, there's a dear.

I spent years wanting to start sentences with "and", I also wished to put a comma before and many times. Sorry if it's too frequent, I only recently found out it was OK (damned social mind-control)
Anyway.
Not sure about the whole beth thing, I don't think my writing style is like hers at all.
Regarding critical thought: I find your points very easy to understand in the framework of this forum, I just don't agree with all of them. While here the intellectual landscape is littered with trueisms and unquestionable belief, out there things are different. I have never been drawn to dogmatic or religious viewpoints so can't help but question you sometimes. I'm sorry that questioning made you so very cross.

I'm still confused as to why people think I'm in favour of a mans "human right " to sex. I'll say it again, they do not have one.
I have always said that, where our hand isn't forced, it is a woman's right to sell her body if she wants. It's just not your place to tell me what to do. Simple really.

Oh, and using "there's a dear" in the pejorative is a little strange don't you think? A bit like male mysogyny?

You haven't questioned me Beth so I have no idea why you think I'm cross, I just think you are an immature idiot. I'll keep calling you Beth as 'and' is just one factor, as I said earlier it is the tone, structure and style that gives you away. I'll add total inability to form a coherent argument and address points.

You're confused as to why we think you are supporting a mans human right to sex? Well if you have a good read of the document we are discussing and actually understand the current legal position in the UK you will see that prostitution is legal, completely legal, we are not telling you what to do as it is your body. Whether it is £20 for a blow job in a back alley, grand a night for a high class hooker, or getting married to someone who can only get off by spunking over your tits in exchange for not having to work, that is your choice. The AI document is arguing for the rights of pimps and clients to not be criminalised, because of their human rights to buy a woman's body.

You even stated yourself actually I do think that it is a mans human right to buy sex from a consenting adult who wishes to sell it.. How can buying another person ever be a fucking human right? Can you not see how repulsive that is? It debases a person down to a mere commodity. If it is a human right to buy another person then by definition the person they are buying is not human. That is vile.

I'm sure you'll now jump in with 'consenting' so how do you know they consent? Is the trafficked girl who is convinced that she will pay off her debt soon but never will really consenting? What about the girl who's boyfriend got her addicted to heroin, then on the game and now looks after her so well by making sure she gets her hit from the profit he keeps.

I'm not some naive little kid like you Beth. I worked in the sex industry and then in outreach , I've worked with street prostitutes, I also know high class call girls and those that were paid by NOTW to do stings on celebrities and then 'sell' their stories (that the paper already owned). You have no clue what it is like out there and it is not a wonderful 'empowering' space for women.

Oh, and using "there's a dear" in the pejorative is a little strange don't you think? A bit like male mysogyny?

Of course it was perjorative, but not misogynistic. I don't think that of women as a class, just total fuckwits of either sex - like you!