AmnestyInternational Prostitution

[JuliaScurr]

Please tweet #Amnesty agm in support of Nordic Model
Pimps out in force

Actually Amnesty UK members voted for decriminalisation of pimps and punters AND to have no policy on the whole issue. Members were confused about the issues.

WhentheRed I think lemonmuffin has been around for a while, maybe added a 1 to the end of their name. Do a search on lemonmuffin and see what comes up

@Greenie, perhaps you are confused?

Amnesty UK members voted for decriminalisation of "buying or selling of consensual sex between adults."

The no policy was for "buying or selling of sexual services."

Which means they advocate decrim when the transaction is between -consenting adults. Near the very start of this thread there is a link to a pdf file detailing the decisions.

@Dervel you do know pimping is already illegal?

@DoctorTwo so "sex was offered" after you paid for a woman's night out was it? But would it have been offered if you let her pay or if you only paid half?

Some people say buying a woman drinks/meal/whatever all night then having a one night stand later with her is like "indirect" prostitution. While that may not be quite the case I can see where they are coming from.

It's nothing like prostitution. In the dinner situation the woman wants to have sex. It's totally different unless you don't care whether a woman actually wants to have sex. Shocking as that may be to some.

"I don't like the word prostitute either. It names women by what men do to them."

So why do you keep using "prostituted woman"? IMO that's worse than "prostitute".

What makes you think we care what you think?

I looked at the link and the text is identical for the motion that was carried and the one for no position.

It doesn't make any sense to me either.

tukapov I doubt that Amnesty would have put forward a motion to decriminalise the buying or selling of sex between minors and / or non-consensual. (Although given a lot of what seems to have been happening you have to wonder).

It is really odd.

"In the dinner situation the woman wants to have sex."

But she expects the man to pay for her dinner/drinks beforehand. And if the man isn't willing to get his wallet out then she finds another man to pay for her drinks. Right?

The woman wants to have sex. But she doesn't want sex with a man who isn't going to give her a free night out. Right?

@NiceTabard I was explaining to Greenie who seemed to be a bit confused.

Some men say that paying for sex as a one off payment is cheaper in the long run when compared to dating or going 'on the pull'. I can see their point of view, I was having sex with a lot of men before I got in to actually selling sex. I was giving it away to randoms who bought me drinks, it was a pretty low point in my life tbh.

If a man is in a relationship then it's money for this, money for that, presents/flowers/chocolates/gifts etc etc etc.

But if a man sees a sex worker then it's money for her time and that's it.

Who is this hypothetical woman?

Most women I know don't expect men to pay for them.

And no woman I know would decide whether or not to have sex with a man after a date based on whether he paid for stuff or not

What a fucked up thing to say.

Women decide whether to fuck men or not based on whether they fancy them and / or fancy some sex. The idea that women do not experience sexual desire except in exchange for money or goods is frankly bizarre and honestly that's one of the most nauseating things I've read.

Most men do not think that women only fuck because they are paid to, one way or another. Most men think that women fuck because they have a sex drive and they are with someone they want to fuck.

I can't get my head around that post it's utterly disturbing.

Most women I know don't expect chocolates or flowers or for men to spend £££ on them.

Where the fuck do you live? A 1920s Busby Barclay film?

Most people in relationships are in partnerships and money is joint.

The made-up hypothetical woman in this thread isn't like any woman I've ever met. I suppose it might help to justify things though.

NiceTabard I hope you don't think I mean that women only have sex in exchange for goods. I don't agree with that at all.

No I'm not referring to your posts Migsy

Although I did think that in your post it was a bit contradictory - You said that your customers complain that going out and pulling women was expensive which is why they pay you for sex. But you also said that before you were working you were having sex with randoms who bought you a couple of drinks, so that was surely cheaper than paying for it.

I think fundamentally the reason they pay is not because women are all grasping venal creatures, but because they don't view women as actual people and see them just as a collection of orifices that they want access to by whatever means. And if they need to tell themselves that having a normal relationship is impossible because all women are grasping venal creatures who only have sex in return for cash/goods anyway, then that is what they will tell themselves.

That post upthread has freaked me out a bit TBH, normal men just do not think that way.

So I mean your customers are being contradictory based on your experience and frankly the experience of loads and loads of other women all over the place. They give a reason but the reason is not true, it's made-up.

I don't 'get' how men think, but yes it's a tad contradictory. I don't think any man could pick up a girl from a club and get her to do x, y, and z in 30 mins and then just get up and leave her. It is just a convenience shag. Is it wrong, which I suppose what all this is about, I don't know.

My views have changed so much since I 1st started to post on the 1st thread. But ultimately I believe if it benefits both parties (the man gets his orgasm and the woman gets her money) then as long as they are both over 18 and doing it freely, it shouldn't be illegal.

tukapov what a sad and deluded world you live in.

tukapov (nice new name, I see) This is just how punters justify themselves. They do not see women as human beings, just orifices. It's not "worth" it to them, to treat women as equal human beings to have a relationship with - it's not something they can consider. It's all just paying for access to women's orifices to them. Pure misogyny.

You actually hate women, distrust them, think they're just after your money, but you desire sex with them. What a dichotomy for you! And thank god not all men are like you.

It's the "freely" bit that causes the disagreement mainly I think.

Sabrina, I don't think all punters hate women. Most are married and have daughters the same age as me (this is just going off the men I meet obviously). They can't hate women, although I can see they don't feel that we are on the same level as their wives/daughters.

The act of putting some women on a pedestal and others, well, not, fundamentally means that those men do not see any women as full human beings.

If they saw women as full human beings they would not be able to make that distinction, because they would understand that women came with complicated personalities and backgrounds just as men do.

For them men get to be fully rounded people and women and girls get to be good/bad.

Pathetic.

The fact that some have wives and daughters makes them worse in my eyes, not better.