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.

[CaptChaos]

Can someone tell me if this AI proposal is just for the UK, or are they planning to propose it as a worldwide stance?

Prostitution is legal in the UK (with certain restrictions), I see no reason to change that, I do see enormous and manifold reasons to criminalise punters and those who profit from it though. I know one to many women and men who have for one reason or another (but usually poverty) worked as escorts/prostitutes. Every single one of them has said that while they were doing it, they would have told the devil himself that they loved it, that it was their choice, blah blah blah, but that now, after exiting they know they were kidding themselves, that they suffered. I am overjoyed for the 'happy hooker', my concern is to protect the multiples of other women, not happy, who have no alternatives open to them.

I cannot support AI's stance on this, when it will only serve to protect the men who profit from the use of other people's bodies as wank socks. Surely AI's time and precious resources would be better spent campaigning about the root causes of why the overwhelming majority of people enter prostitution, poverty, sexual abuse, drug abuse and women's subjugation in society?

[ThinkAboutItTomorrow]

Have heard that the Chief Exec of amnesty is on mumsnet on Tuesday for a q&a

Not totally confirmed but hope so.

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Yes indeed, we have a webchat with Amnesty's UK Director tomorrow (Tuesday) at 11am.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

The webchat will be a bloodbath interesting.

Already 2 sex activists/pimps have registered purely to post on it, and post petitions/publicise websites. Plus 2 others that only signed up to post on these AI threads.

It's not really a Mumsnet webchat when this happens is it? More a platform for people pushing their agenda.

[DominaElle]

Criminalizing clients is just as wrong as criminalizing sex workers! IT MAKES NO SENSE. It only makes sense when you are demonizing marginalizing and stigmatizing clients as all being the same and they are not all the same. It's absurd and will never bring about solutions to address trafficking especially due to the fact that the vast majority of clients are adults seeking adult companionship with no desire to exploit or harm! I'm sorry you insist upon seeing every man who would purchase sexual services as being a scum bag pervert who would harm children. Child predators are in a category all their own. Traffickers are in a category all their own. Problem is, radical feminists want to broad stroke all men who purchase sex in one category. I suppose it's less taxing to actually deal with this subject in a rational manner, a subject which is far more complex than you are acknowledging and deserves more focus than what your ideologically driven perspectives require!

[FloraFox]

To be clear, I don't think anyone here has said "all men who purchase sexual services are scum bag perverts who would harm children". It should be "all men who purchase sexual services are scum bag perverts some of whom would harm children".

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Criminalising the punters reduces demand. Normalising prostitution, or making it more socially acceptable, increases the demand. Prostitution and trafficking cannot be separated out - where there is a demand to buy women for sex, there will trafficking of women and children.

"Trafficking is a business. …We try to destroy the market."
--Thomas Ekman, Detective Chief Inspector, Head of Anti-Trafficking Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2005

[DominaElle]

I see a lot of willful ignorance standing on ideologies. Intellectual laziness runs rampant throughout these discussions! As long as people conflate trafficking and consensual sex work via their ideologies this subject will never be resolved in a way which benefits society in a holistic manner rather than helping some people while harming and devastating other people!

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

How does defining a man's right to buy sex as a 'human right' help society and how will it stop trafficking?

[DominaElle]

By going after clients you are still criminalizing sex work despite the way you want to see things. There is no proof substantiated by data which shows that criminalizing clients reduces the demand! Let's see it.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

How does defining a man's right to buy sex as a 'human right' stop trafficking?

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

If anything, it's going to increase it - encourage more men to say "I've got a 'right' to pay for this woman."

[NiceTabard]

The study in scotland that I have linked at least once upthread, which canvassed men who buy sex in Scotland, was quite conclusive that men who buy sex are influenced by the legislative approach of where they are.

ie if it's illegal, and there might be consequences, they will think twice.

So, there is a study, it has been linked to more than once. By me. Maybe you should consider reading it.

Incidentally it has men vs women they bought feelings before and after and stuff. It is really interesting.

That study is not that long, and is very interesting. Funny how some on this thread just can't bring themselves to read it.

And I say, less men buying women to fuck into = result. On the other convo.

[NiceTabard]

It is also patently true that where something is normailised, everyone starts to do it.

See - men on stags going to eastern europe and buying women, which they in the main wouldn't do here.

Why? Because it's still considered pretty seedy to go to a prostitute, and young men when in the UK don't have it as part of a "boys night out". on holiday where "anything goes" and most do.

I would rather not have a situation encouraged worldwide where men losing their virginity to, and visiting generally, prostitutes is a norm of life. Like having a beer or going for a curry. A pint a naan and a girl. it's just a grim proposition. And that is where it is at, in certain parts of the world.

[FloraFox]

It's funny how the pro-pimps use prohibition as an argument for decriminalisation. It's one of their go-to arguments but it doesn't support decriminalisation at all, in my view. Most people did not drink alcohol during prohibition. I have an aunt who is an alcoholic and she told me if she had lived during prohibition her life would have been much better because she would not have broken the law and started drinking. Most people obey the law, whatever it is. It's blindingly obvious to anyone who gives it a moment's thought that decriminalisation would cause demand to surge. As happened in Germany. I agree NT it's very grim.

[migsy86]

I'm not getting paid to be raped. What a horrible and insulting comment.

[Grennie]

And people ignore the fact that eveno now long afterwards, prohibition has had an impact on attitudes to alcohol. There are plenty of places in America where if you order a bottle of wine between a couple, you will be looked at is if you are an alcoholic.

[FloraFox]

Without the money there would be no "consent" and it would be rape.

[Ev1lEdna]

I'm sorry you insist upon seeing every man who would purchase sexual services as being a scum bag pervert who would harm children. Child predators are in a category all their own. Traffickers are in a category all their own. Problem is, radical feminists want to broad stroke all men who purchase sex in one category. I suppose it's less taxing to actually deal with this subject in a rational manner, a subject which is far more complex than you are acknowledging and deserves more focus than what your ideologically driven perspectives require!

What are you talking about?

I have read this thread from beginning to end and I have been increasingly frustrated by your responses. You are willfully ignoring a number of pertinent questions and continue to push this agenda you have that all feminists want to criminalise sex workers, and this even after a variety of people have pointed out that no-one has said this - several times.

If anyone is pushing an ideological stance on this thread it is you. I have read a variety of extremely reasonable and rational responses from people on this thread, responses which have included rational questions you have avoided (presumably because they do not fit into your pursuit of your own ideology.) If this issue is so complex (and I'm not disagreeing with that statement) it begs the question why are your responses so simplistic and fixed? Are YOU reading the material in the links people have posted here? Have you read the Scottish study for example?

If nothing else this: every man who would purchase sexual services as being a scum bag pervert who would harm children is something you have entirely made up. Not a single person has said this or even implied it. However, I assume you will willfully continue to -think this is what people have said because it suits your (in my opinion, oversimplified-I'm-alright-jack-so everyone-else-in-the-industry-must-be-too-because-I-know-them-all) position.

On the matter of AI I am extremely disappointed and have already written to them regarding this issue. I am horrified that satisfying sexual desire could be considered a right, and horrified that in supporting this 'right' they are dismissing the more important rights of an oppressed group.

My position on this echoes many contributors to this thread Grennie, Whenthered, Buffy and others.

[StopPornCulture]

If you want to write to AI or find out more:

for a letter template complete with names and email addresses, please go to stoppornculture.org/action-alerts/write-to-amnesty-international

there is a brilliant article about the topic in the guardian written by Julie Bindel. you can find it here: stoppornculture.org/2014/01/25/julie-bindel-article-on-amnesty

Thank you for your interest!

Stop Porn Culture

[zeffa101]

Men (and women) should be at liberty to purchase sexual services provided that the person providing them is doing so of their own free will (I.E. without coercion of any kind). Most people (including me) subscribe to the belief that we own our bodies. If one adheres to this perspective there is no logical reason for objecting to a freely consenting adult selling sexual services or another consenting person buying them. Many people do make a conscious decision, free of coercion, to sell sex. They calculate that providing personal services will furnish more money than they can earn in another occupation. If someone decides they would rather earn £150 as a professional escort rather just over the minimum wage working for a fast food restaurant what right has anyone to prevent them from doing so or insist that a fellow adult ought not to purchase sexual services which are being freely offered. There should be financial and other assistance for those wishing to exit prostitution and, in the ideal world prostitution would decline, however even if we imagine full employment with everyone receiving a living wage some people would still choose to sell sex and others to purchase their services. Any law prohibiting the purchase of sex would be difficult to enforce. Escort agencies, for example provide girls (and men) for sex, however the sexual activity takes place behind closed doors, often in private homes or hotels and is, as a consequence practically impossible to police. In Sweden there is some evidence that prostitution has moved from the streets indoors, into massage parlours and escort agencies meaning that the number of working women in Sweden has not, in fact declined but that prostitution has gone elsewhere.

[zeffa101]

Stop Porn Culture - It is, indeed an interesting article, however I agree with the view attributed to Amnesty that the ability to pay for sex should be considered as constituting a human right provided that the persons selling it are of legal age and are not being coerced in any manner.