Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Off topic!

It's quite simple. Prostitutes fear reporting assaults to the police because of how the law regards prostitution. If prostitution were decriminalized, such fear would not exist.

No, that isn't an answer. I asked "How would Libertarians police the Prostitution industry?"

Why are you capitalizing "Prostitute" and "Libertarianism"? This isn't an eighteenth-century novel.

Off topic!

As I've stated clearly above, it's up to the individual to deal with the legacy of his or her bad choices, not the taxpayer. Or maybe you want to pay for people's bad choices out of the overflowing crock of gold beneath Leinster House?

We have places that deal with bad choices, things like drug addiction, sexual abuse, that type of thing. Often comes under psychiatric services, we've managed to do this for the history of the state. I don't see how "a crock of gold" is relevant. The fact is the State provides these services already for people who can't afford them because well, often they aren't in the right place to pay for them, it's what medical cards are for.

If a woman becomes a prostitute because she is addicted to drugs, then yes, she's made an unfortunate chain of bad choices.

Stating the obvious again.

Ooops, I went to Vegas, hit the bottle, and lost my house in a poker game. Then my wife left me because I'm a drunken homeless fool. But the government should compensate me for the aftereffects of my dumb choices, right? I want a new house and therapy, all on the taxpayer's dime.

Why do you have to over exaggerate everything? We aren't talking about gambling the house away! The world just isn't as simple or black and white as that, I know Libertarians think it should be.

You're not making any kind of compelling case as to why I and other taxpayers should pay for her recovery.

I don't particularly have to make a compelling case, the state already provides services for the aftermath of drug addiction and prostitution. The option is also there to go private and pay for counselling etc personally. You're the Libertarian who should be providing example of how things would work, which you don't seem to be able to do very well.

Curiously, there are plenty of women on this forum who aren't drug addicts or prostitutes. Maybe they just got lucky. Or maybe they actually made smarter choices.

Stating the obvious again.

You actually think prostitutes pay taxes? Oh please let's see you try to convince us that all those €200 rolls of cash are being declared to Revenue.

Bangs head of desk again. What exactly do you expect them to file under occupation/business?

MariaMoy

There will always be people who are heavily invested in believing in the fantasy of 'choice' in prostitution. All I can do is reiterate that I never saw choice anywhere I looked in prostitution, and I spent a lot of time looking, believe me.

What I did see was plenty of people, usually men, who had sincere reasons of their own for wanting to believe it existed, in the shape and form that suited their own agenda. I'd encourage people who want to know what most prostitutes and former prostitutes I've ever spoken to think about 'choice' to read the group statement released below.

That is all. I'm stepping out of this conversation now for sure. Thank you to everyone who took the time to listen to me.

"We, the survivors of prostitution and trafficking gathered at this press conference today, declare that prostitution is violence against women. Women in prostitution do not wake up one day and "choose" to be prostitutes. It is chosen for us by poverty, past sexual abuse, the pimps who take advantage of our vulnerabilities, and the men who buy us for the sex of prostitution." (Manifesto, Joint CATW-EWL Press Conference, 2005)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What relevance has a thanked post have? Unless you can read my exact thoughts when I thanked it, it's irrelevant, more off topic nonsense.

Not really wanting to get into another Libertarian discussion with an ideologue on the issue, so I'll concentrate on the tax issue, why exactly are you whittering on about tax?

I'd have thought it was a black market activity, just by its very, pretty self explanatory nature. Haven't had any come to me to do their Accounts for them, put it that way! Suppose they could declare it under other income or something!

I'm pretty sure he is suggesting if they don't feel the need to contribute to the state, the state should not feel the need to contribute to them either

K-9

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he is suggesting if they don't feel the need to contribute to the state, the state should not feel the need to contribute to them either

Yes, I understand that. I'm just pointing out its a bit of an unfair expectation given the quasi-legal nature of the very activity.

In The Netherlands they do indeed complete tax returns, prepare Accounts etc. just like any normal business.

I'd be all for a third party return as well with a list of bigger clients!

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The same way they police any other service industry.

We have places that deal with bad choices, things like drug addiction, sexual abuse, that type of thing. Often comes under psychiatric services, we've managed to do this for the history of the state. I don't see how "a crock of gold" is relevant. The fact is the State provides these services already for people who can't afford them because well, often they aren't in the right place to pay for them, it's what medical cards are for.

I don't think you're following along very well here.

Why do you have to over exaggerate everything? We aren't talking about gambling the house away!

Sorry, I thought we were talking about a "crime" that "destroys the women involved," per a post that you thanked above. And I'm the one who is "over-exaggerating"?

You insist that the taxpayer should compensate individuals for dealing with the aftereffects of their own bad choices ... but you don't seem able to rationalize that position because you're not able to argue that the state should compensate individuals for the aftereffects of other kinds of bad choices. Your argument here is about as porous as a lling and other services for them.

Some prostitutes are pocketing thousands of euros in untaxed income per week. But they're the "victims" whom the state has to provide with free counseling and drug rehab. I see.[/Quote]

A few maybe pocketing that amount but when you can get full sex at around 50 euros i am speculating thats a tiny minority.

I also am at a loss as to how you deem someone worthy of help based on their previous behaviour ? Rationally if you follow that thought process most drug addicts alcoholics etc etc would also not be worthy of your taxes being used to help them.

The_Thing

Stella Marr wrote: »

In Sweden a prostitute has the right to sue her Johns for financial damages, due to the violation of her humanity, dignity and equality.

I wonder how many of them actually do though?

I doubt that the likes of Pye Jacobson and the sex workers that she and people like her represent would. As she herself has said:

Those feminists who have fought for women’s right to control our bodies and the right to say ‘no’ must also accept my right to say ‘yes’.

Should adults be prevented from entering prostitution if they do so willingly in order to satisfy some feminist or religious idealogy?

neuro-praxis

The_Thing wrote: »

Should adults be prevented from entering prostitution if they do so willingly in order to satisfy some feminist or religious idealogy?

Good question.

All laws however are passed based on an ideology, so you're only asking the same question that gets asked when considering any legislation e.g. should adults be prevented from taking heroin if they do so willingly in order to satisfy some bourgeois ideology?

That its being drawn into law would satisfy a particular ideology isn't in fact a criticism of it.

midlandsmissus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Have you used a prostitute?

Stheno

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Have you used a prostitute?

Everyone, can we please try to keep the debate civil and avoid directing personal questions at individuals?

Emme

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he is suggesting if they don't feel the need to contribute to the state, the state should not feel the need to contribute to them either

Unless it's off duty government ministers paying prostitutes for services rendered :rolleyes:

Emme

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Many prostitutes have to give a considerable cut of their earnings to pimps, who are the ones dodging taxes. Also many prostitutes are forced or manipulated into the industry. Men who use prostitutes put virtual blinkers on whenever they buy sex so they don't see the plight of the woman they are buying - they turn a blind eye to her suffering while they are, excuse the expression, getting their rocks off.

Prostitution is illegal so how can prostitutes declare their earnings? Even if it were legalised I'm sure that lots of pimps would go underground to evade taxes.

If prostitution were legalised would people be more sympathetic to the plight of prostitutes? If they had to pay taxes it's likely that their services might be more expensive. I don't think this would elicit much sympathy in punters.

If it were illegal for punters to purchase sex and if they were caught doing so they had to pay a hefty fine perhaps this would be one way of subsidising rehabilitation of traumatised prostitutes.

TLOP

As a woman currently working in prostitution and having worked for close to 15 years, and having made the choice to do so of my own free will. Ok, stone me. It may surprise some of you, that there are some of use who are indeed suited to the job, we actually enjoy it, and would be in a great deal of financial trouble if the opportunity to earn a living was taken away from us. Not all women are trafficked, or drug addicted.

ktl2012

Hi All,

I just registered tonight after reading the entire thread here and wanted to give my opinions on different issues raised here.

I first became aware of DCG's blog through EI, they had a thread there also about the issues she was raising and much like here, they debated over different things she wrote about.... So having read the entire thread on EI, the entire thread here and all of DCG's blog I have somethings I would like to get off my chest....

What I will say will no doubt upset many, however I am only giving my own opinions on things I have experienced in regards to prostitution. So far 495 comments have been posted to date and not one person has admitted to using escorts / prostitutes. I am / was what you would call a John / Client / Punter. It was asked earlier in the thread as to why a man would visit an escort, I will answer from my own experience and touch on other issues raised here, on EI and on DCG's blog.

I will start off by telling you how I came across this thread and DCG's. I was on EI, looking for an escort to possibly visit about 2-3 weeks ago and stumbled upon a thread on their forum discussing DCG's blog. They we're having a similar debate there as to what is going on here, Is she real? Was it fact or fiction? It raised all the same questions there too regarding men who use escorts, women who prostitute themselves and the reasons why, very much the same opinions for the most part.

I visited my first escort in Jan 2010 I think it was, having stumbled upon their site I became curious about how it all works in Ireland. We're the women in the photos actually real? How much was it? etc... So from Jan 2010 up to my last visit in Nov 2011 I visited about 20 escorts in that time.

I would say for the record, much of how DCG depicted is very accurate and it is how I began to feel actually when I went for a punt. When it was asked on here earlier why a man would pay for sex, DCG is very much spot on with her description. I like many other guys I would log onto EI, view different photos of women and I would call up and arrange an appointment, the excitement builds cause your nervous about how it will turn out when you get there, will it be the girl in the photos etc... So you pick your woman, make your call, arrange the time, maybe have a request or two that she dress a certain way, you travel there and get excited about it...your ring again for final directions outside an upmarket Dublin city block of apartments and when you get to her apt door and knock you hear the sound of high heels on wood.... the door opens and you get a rush of nerves and see a stunningly beautiful woman!

So, for many guys its playing out a fantasy, something their partner might not partake in, be it a sexual request like anal or some other thing they want to try, this was mentioned earlier.... What then happens is when they have a woman play out their fantasy, it becomes a control thing...getting what you want and a guy expects it each time they visit an escort then.. add to this the "thrill" of doing something that is seen by many as seedy it gives things a sense of risque for many guys..There was a thread on EI about why men punt also and these two reasons were given time and time again....

I guess for myself, the reason I first started punting was because I lacked confidence, I never saw myself as being able to pull women on a night out and wouldn't be the type to be hitting on women in bars..... Mix that with a very high sex drive I told myself it was a quick and easy fix while not looking at the bigger picture!

Having read DCG's blog it has now made me see the bigger picture and I have serious doubts about the entire prostitution industry and how things really are behind the scenes if you will. When I read her blog, it made me recall each time I visited an escort and how I conducted myself with each lady in question. I can honestly say I don't recall acting the way she describes many punters on her blog, I can honestly say I have never thrown money on the floor and demanded she pick it up or act violently towards any woman I visited... I am not the standard vision of a punter that many on here probably have, I am in my early 30's, considered good looking (been told by some woman I am), not overweight or pot bellied , nor am I toothless or covered in mangled thick hair.... I am just a regular guy who holds down a normal job with normal family...

I did on occasion actually ask the escort I would visit how they came to be in Ireland and why did they chose escorting as a way to make money, I knew even then when I was asking them it was pointless...come on, like I was ever going to be given the truth, I was never going to be told she was forced into it or that she was smothered in debt that she had no other option but to sell her body for sex.... I like every other man would ALWAYS be given the happy hooker routine...

I know some of what I have said will no doubt upset some people, I am just expressing some opinions I have regarding my experiences while punting..... At this stage I doubt I will visit an escort again, why? I started to think the things that DCG has put down in black and white since last summer.... I continued to visit escorts occasionally even though I had these doubts, but having read her blog it just hits home.... it will make visiting another escort again very very very difficult if I chose to do so...

neuro-praxis

ktl2012 wrote: »

I guess for myself, the reason I first started punting was because I lacked confidence, I never saw myself as being able to pull women on a night out and wouldn't be the type to be hitting on women in bars..... Mix that with a very high sex drive I told myself it was a quick and easy fix while not looking at the bigger picture!

I am just a regular guy who holds down a normal job with normal family...

Wait...are you single or married?

ktl2012

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Wait...are you single or married?

Single, when I say family I meant parents & siblings...

apologies for the confusion..

latenia

newport2 wrote: »

Should pornography be classified as prostitution?

If paying women to have sex is wrong, surely watching women payed to have sex is also wrong?

On top of that, at least if you were once a prostitute you can get out and put it behind you, psychological damage aside. Once footage is taken of you being paid to have sex, there's no way back. It's on the internet forever and that fact may traumatise women who once did it and now regret it, knowing that it's always there.

I'm not using one to justify the other, just interested what people think.

There is no difference whatsoever; indeed many if not most porn 'actors' also work as prostitutes. Besides the loss of anomymity and dignity due to the very public nature of the work, they are also tend to be involved in sexual acts far more degrading than your average prostitute would encounter.

Any woman who watches porn is using prostitutes-it's that simple. Presumably all the people here calling for clients to be prosecuted will be handing themselves into the local garda station.

I'm sure I'll be called out on this here because I'm not going with the forum group-think that modern, open-minded, liberal women can enjoy porn and it's a harmless activity. It's what's known as 'cognitive dissonance' ie: I'll switch logic and perception as I see fit in order to suit my own world view.

newport2

latenia wrote: »

Any woman who watches porn is using prostitutes-it's that simple. Presumably all the people here calling for clients to be prosecuted will be handing themselves into the local garda station.

That's assuming that all the people here watch porn of course

The_Thing

There are a vast amount of amateur porn sites featuring women who have discovered that they can make a lot of money doing something they enjoy.

Here's the wiki entry for one such site: Wifey's World

I wonder what Ruhama would have to say about the likes of "wifey"?
She's not trafficked, she's not coerced, she's not a drug addict, but in their eyes because she's getting paid to do it she is somehow a "victim" of the sex industry.

If she wasn't getting paid to do it, but ran the site anyway, would she be seen as more or less a "victim"?

Badhb

Wondering if anybody saw the Channel 4 documentary last night about women who earned a good income from working as a phone sex chat person.

The documentary was in a much more whimsical style than the likes of the tv3 one that had just been on previous with Paul whats his face and his zipped up leather jacket trying to look hard as he 'infiltrated Dublin's underground of vicegirls after months of dead leads"....

In fairness, that was one of the better Paul whatshisface documentaries so far on TV3, not that says much but anyway...

the channel 4 doc seems to suggest that for the price of acting a role and saying the right words down a phoneline while you are painting the kitchen, you too could have a very comfortable life from the proceeds of the phone sex industry.

I have to admit it sounded tempting.
Then I wondered why on earth other sex workers had not availed of this more easier option? Assuming they had not been co-erced or trafficked into their line of work?

neuro-praxis

The_Thing wrote: »

I wonder what Ruhama would have to say about the likes of "wifey"?
She's not trafficked, she's not coerced, she's not a drug addict, but in their eyes because she's getting paid to do it she is somehow a "victim" of the sex industry.

I do find this line of thought quite irritating. Why not simply ask Ruhama what they make of this? My understanding is that they function to create exit strategies for women who want to get out of prostitution. Obv would not be relevant in the above case?

Larleane28

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I do find this line of thought quite irritating. Why not simply ask Ruhama what they make of this? My understanding is that they function to create exit strategies for women who want to get out of prostitution. Obv would not be relevant in the above case?

After having read the two very long threads on this subject here recently I am not given to think that The_Thing much deals in facts or relevancy to be honest. Several comments made have led me to dismiss his views as unreliable.

For example, in reference to the unnamed woman who wrote this piece in last months Irish Examiner The-Thing maintained: "The woman who wrote the Irish Examiner article is a mouth piece for Ruhama and as such it is her job to paint as bleak a picture as possible. She has previouisly dismissed the "Scarlett O'Kelly" book as complete nonsense, but wants us to take her account as the gospel truth."

In the first sentence here he says this woman is "a mouth piece for Ruhama", although the woman is anonymous, nobody has any idea who she is and there is no reference whatever to Ruhama in the article.

He then goes on to say that she has "previously dismissed the Scarlett O'Kelly book as nonsense", by which I can only assume he is deliberately trying to cause people to confuse the woman who wrote the Examiner piece with the writer of the blog under discussion. (as the Examiner piece had feck-all to say about O'Kelly) He seems to be attempting to conflate their identities and present them as the same person. That is a wasted effort, because any fool who's read both could tell you they were written by two different women, e.g. two totally different timelines, two totally different reasons for entering prostitution, two totally different age groups at entry and exit. Just two totally different accounts basically.

It seems to me that the content of The_Thing's posts make it very clear that he is prepared to argue any angle, regardless how blatantly fabricated, and to use any attempt to discredit the voices of these women in order to whitewash the public perception of prostitution.

The_Thing

Larleane28, I have read your post and I accept that I made mistakes. I apologise to all concerned. Sorry.

However, in my defence I will say that I am not the only one posting in this thread who has been mistaken - Eileen Lang was denounced as being a pimp by one poster and another thought she might be someone called Wendy Lyons, however she was interviewed on the radio awhile ago and seemed both inteligent and passionate about the subject.

Ickle Magoo

Okay - between the soap-boxing, the sock-puppeting, the re-regging, the blog-whoring, the hi-jacking & the continued references to a site-banned poster; this thread has run it's course.