Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl

sunflower27

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Ah yes, the one who was *coerced* into accepting deed and title to a condo opposite the Lincoln Centre from a British academic who was hardly ever there...

Another inspirational and highly believable story...:rolleyes:



Even if you take her at face value, you cannot get away from that..

She claims she did not need the money, had loads of family and friends to support her...so if she hated it, why not just stop it?

She claims she found reviews horrible (which they are IMHO), but they are "opt in" features...so why not just opt out?

She seems to be claiming that she had no idea she hated it, or that she was traumatised until after she stopped...so how does she know she will not find she is in even worse shape after she stops from writing all this "pity porn"?

She constantly boasts about her ability to manipulate people...

Oh yes, she manipulates the men when it suits her and when she needs more money off them and then has the gall to give out that one of them said her tits were small. I mean, come on....

She sounds incredibly egotistical to me. Like she is playing these men to 'win' and the fact they are getting to rate her - and she has no control over it - is something she can't control and something that stings...

You aint all that, love!:rolleyes:

Sally J

sunflower27 wrote: »

So if she doesn't seem into it then why doesn't she say she doesn't want to do it? She isnt doing it for free is she? She is getting paid for it.

Well I'm not in any other woman's head but I do know that prostitution is not nearly as cut and dried as that. What you're talking about basically boils down to the issue of choice and consent. There's a fairly descriptive article about choice in prostituion here:

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.co...reeirishwoman/

sunflower27

Sally J wrote: »

Well I'm not in any other woman's head but I do know that prostitution is not nearly as cut and dried as that. What you're talking about basically boils down to the issue of choice and consent. There's a fairly descriptive article about choice in prostituion here:

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.co...reeirishwoman/

I am going on the woman's choice as detailed in the blog, not every woman. And yes, I am aware that for some women, there is no choice, it is a case of survival.

28064212

Sally J wrote: »

Well I'm not in any other woman's head but I do know that prostitution is not nearly as cut and dried as that. What you're talking about basically boils down to the issue of choice and consent. There's a fairly descriptive article about choice in prostituion here:

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.co...reeirishwoman/

Replace prostitution with any other job in that article and the argument is exactly the same. I don't want to be a bin-man (or a banker), but I would happily argue for the right of other people to choose to be one

Sally J

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Believe whatever you want to believe.

Belief is the poor mans knowledge Eileen - and I know as well as you do that you don't know that girl from a hole in the ground. But you keep on providing entertainment to the thread by telling your obvious lies

Eileen_Lang

sunflower27 wrote: »

So if she doesn't seem into it then why doesn't she say she doesn't want to do it? She isnt doing it for free is she? She is getting paid for it.

What do you mean by exploited and coerced woman? I am talking about the woman who wrote the blog here - who chose to be a prostitute to make money. The same woman that seems to be highly offended that men don't want to label her 10/10. No woman is going to be every man's perfect woman, regardless of what she looks like.

Absolutely, in her own words (earlier in the blog) she claims that did not need the money, she needed to sell herself for some kind of pathological gratification (akin to self harm perhaps?).

She claims she actively solicited men, had no pimp and "did not have a bad time".

So if she has now decided that she hates it, she had probably better not do it again - SIMPLES )

sunflower27 wrote: »

If you are selling yourself and your body then that is what is going to be rated. I'd imagine willingness would be part of the experience from a man's perspective. And it is her clients that are writing the review.

It is a moot point anyway as men are going to post what they want and nothing I say or anyone else says is going to stop that.

The reviewing business is after my time, and I have to say it makes my flesh crawl...there are so many really nasty little reasons for someone to write a review...but apparently, it is not just me who sees this...so the "Review" feature is strictly an "opt in" tool...if you don't like it, you don't have to be reviewed. I am told some people find it a useful marketing tool, and if so, good luck to them...but nobody has to be reviewed against her will.

Eileen_Lang

28064212 wrote: »

Replace prostitution with any other job in that article and the argument is exactly the same. I don't want to be a bin-man (or a banker), but I would happily argue for the right of other people to choose to be one

Totally!

In fact I can assure you that I would have to sell sex if my only other alternative was to be an undertaker, a pathologist or work in an abbatoir...because, for me, all are absolutely unthinkable...I am just too squeamish...but I have know super, funny, warm, mentally and emotionally healthy people who have done all 3 jobs...

Maple

Sally J wrote: »

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Believe whatever you want to believe.

Belief is the poor mans knowledge Eileen - and I know as well as you do that you don't know that girl from a hole in the ground. But you keep on providing entertainment to the thread by telling your obvious lies

Will the pair of you please take your bickering to PM.

Maple

Sally J

Maple wrote: »

Will the pair of you please take your bickering to PM.

Maple

I've already invited Eileen to prove her assertions via PM Maple. She has refused to do that.

Eileen_Lang

sunflower27 wrote: »

Oh yes, she manipulates the men when it suits her and when she needs more money off them and then has the gall to give out that one of them said her tits were small. I mean, come on....

She sounds incredibly egotistical to me. Like she is playing these men to 'win' and the fact they are getting to rate her - and she has no control over it - is something she can't control and something that stings...

You aint all that, love!:rolleyes:

I think she may well be of a personality type that is so compelled to seek attention that she would "opt in" for reviewing because even unpleasant reviews are better then feeling, or looking, ignored.

Also, woman who opts in to review without knowing that somebody will say her breasts are too small, sooner or later, and perhaps regularly, should probably not be allowed out without a keeper!

Maple

Sally J wrote: »

Maple wrote: »

Will the pair of you please take your bickering to PM.

Maple

I've already invited Eileen to prove her assertions via PM Maple. She has refused to do that.

That is her decision, nothing I can do about that. However your continued sniping at one another is derailing the thread so consider this my only warning to the both of you to stop. The next step will be to infraction/ban you.

Maple

Sally J

Maple wrote: »

That is her decision, nothing I can do about that. However your continued sniping at one another is derailing the thread so consider this my only warning to the both of you to stop. The next step will be to infraction/ban you.

Maple

I appreciate that, as a mod, you have to do what you have to do. I'd like to point out though that it's difficult for me to read blatant lies written on a public message board about someone I care about who I KNOW to have been terribly traumatised by the subject matter at hand.

To be honest if I'd known some of the content of these threads I would never have signed up in the first place, and I may well make my exit for the same reason.

Thanks anyway Maple for you civility and even-handedness

Eileen_Lang

Maple wrote: »

Will the pair of you please take your bickering to PM.

Maple

Fair enough Maple, but I don't see any point in pm'ing either as I have absolutely nothing to say to her, and no interest in anything she has to say, so I will just pop her on my "ignore" list and forget about her if you don't mind?

Wibbs

Can we get back to the actual thread now please? And no do not reply to this post. The thread has been derailed enough. Thank you.

Sally J

28064212 wrote: »

Replace prostitution with any other job in that article and the argument is exactly the same. I don't want to be a bin-man (or a banker), but I would happily argue for the right of other people to choose to be one

Yeah the argument is exactly the same - because people regularly end up bin-men or bankers through homelessness, past sexual abuse ect :rolleyes:

I'm going to cancel my account now because I truly cannot stomach the amount of glib ignorance on the subject under discussion here. It is especially dissapointing since I was told this was a place to discuss issues from a woman's perspective. I've seen precious little evidence of that here.

One thing before I go: Dublincallgirl has survived an adolescence filled with ritual sexual abuse and a young adulthood that was a continuium of everything she'd come to know. Prostitution in her life was a consequence of that abuse. She has survived a life that would make a lot of people crumble, but she has not done that. Instead she has determined to recover, emotionally and mentally, and she is doing her utmost both to get better for her own sake and to let people know about the degrading abusive reality of prostitution. I am very proud of her.

28064212

Sally J wrote: »

Yeah the argument is exactly the same - because people regularly end up bin-men or bankers through homelessness, past sexual abuse ect :rolleyes:

Which isn't an argument that was presented. The post you linked to made the argument that woman arguing for the acceptability of prostitution for other women while clearly regarding it unacceptable for herself was some sort of valid point against prostitution. It is clearly not, and that was the only argument I was dismissing in my post. Allegations of "glib ignorance" are completely misdirected.

Lots of people end up in unpleasant jobs they don't want to do due to financial circumstances. As for abuse victims, that's just one more reason to bring prostitution out of the dark corners and into the spotlight. If abuse victims are looking to prostitution because of what happened to them, do you think the legality or realities of prostitution matters one iota to them? Why not be able to actually talk about it in a mature society? Where's the regulation of the industry, instead of looking to prohibition, which has never solved any societal problem?

Maple

Sally J wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

Replace prostitution with any other job in that article and the argument is exactly the same. I don't want to be a bin-man (or a banker), but I would happily argue for the right of other people to choose to be one

Yeah the argument is exactly the same - because people regularly end up bin-men or bankers through homelessness, past sexual abuse ect :rolleyes:

I'm going to cancel my account now because I truly cannot stomach the amount of glib ignorance on the subject under discussion here. It is especially dissapointing since I was told this was a place to discuss issues from a woman's perspective. I've seen precious little evidence of that here.

One thing before I go: Dublincallgirl has survived an adolescence filled with ritual sexual abuse and a young adulthood that was a continuium of everything she'd come to know. Prostitution in her life was a consequence of that abuse. She has survived a life that would make a lot of people crumble, but she has not done that. Instead she has determined to recover, emotionally and mentally, and she is doing her utmost both to get better for her own sake and to let people know about the degrading abusive reality of prostitution. I am very proud of her.

While I accept the fact that you may know this lady and as a result find some opinions upsetting, it is a discussion board. That is what people are doing here, debating the topic at hand. Just because you don't agree with what is being said does not mean that the forum is anti women's issues and it is disingenuous to suggest it is.

Maple

neuro-praxis

sunflower27 wrote: »

She writes about the men as if they are all one and the same. And yet, she is providing a service and being paid for it - and that service is her body. What else are the men going to comment on - her intellect? ... She sells her body for a living, correction, she sells sex with her body for a living. If she finds the whole thing so abhorrant and disgusting, then stop doing it.

sunflower27 wrote: »

So if she doesn't seem into it then why doesn't she say she doesn't want to do it? She isnt doing it for free is she? She is getting paid for it.

What do you mean by exploited and coerced woman? I am talking about the woman who wrote the blog here - who chose to be a prostitute to make money. The same woman that seems to be highly offended that men don't want to label her 10/10. No woman is going to be every man's perfect woman, regardless of what she looks like.

If you are selling yourself and your body then that is what is going to be rated. I'd imagine willingness would be part of the experience from a man's perspective. And it is her clients that are writing the review.

It is a moot point anyway as men are going to post what they want and nothing I say or anyone else says is going to stop that.

sunflower27 wrote: »

Oh yes, she manipulates the men when it suits her and when she needs more money off them and then has the gall to give out that one of them said her tits were small. I mean, come on....

She sounds incredibly egotistical to me. Like she is playing these men to 'win' and the fact they are getting to rate her - and she has no control over it - is something she can't control and something that stings...

You aint all that, love!:rolleyes:

You have astonished me with:

1. Your sheer laziness in reading only a couple of posts; both of her blog and on this thread. It is outlined in DCG's (very short and recent) blog multiple times that she has ceased prostitution and is now living with the suicidal tendencies, PTSD and mess that her involvement with it has left behind.

2. Your callous attitude of "She is getting what she deserves". Just because there are consequences for our choices does not mean that we deserve them. I fundamentally believe we are entitled to second, third, fourth chances and the right to make good and recover from mistakes.

3. Your view of prostitution as a transaction that ought to have no affect on the prostitute. As though money is the cure for what ails ya? "You got paid, didn't you?!"

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Ah yes, the one who was *coerced* into accepting deed and title to a condo opposite the Lincoln Centre from a British academic who was hardly ever there...

Another inspirational and highly believable story...:rolleyes:

Really - are you the only ex-prostitute who has had a story to tell? I actually feel pretty angry with the way you put other woman down at this stage.

Sally J wrote: »

I'd like to point out though that it's difficult for me to read blatant lies written on a public message board about someone I care about who I KNOW to have been terribly traumatised by the subject matter at hand.

To be honest if I'd known some of the content of these threads I would never have signed up in the first place, and I may well make my exit for the same reason.

Thanks anyway Maple for you civility and even-handedness

Sally J, hang on in here. There are a lot of good and kind women around the Ladies Lounge. I understand how hurtful it is to put yourself out there, or see your friend put herself out there, and be lambasted. But that is what happens. It is not right, but it happens. And not everyone is in that mode. There is a lot of support for DCG here and women who have had similar experiences.

Eileen_Lang

28064212 wrote: »

Which isn't an argument that was presented. The post you linked to made the argument that woman arguing for the acceptability of prostitution for other women while clearly regarding it unacceptable for herself was some sort of valid point against prostitution. It is clearly not, and that was the only argument I was dismissing in my post.

I don't even think there is much of a lobby of women who think prostitution is acceptable for other women but not for themselves. There is far more energy going into creating the impression that there reverse is true and that people who have decided prostitution is not acceptable for them also have, not only the right, but some kind of valid need to prohibit it to everyone else.

This is often taken to ridiculous extremes. Only recently, elsewhere, I saw someone exhorting a sexworker to have the compassion to be willing give up her income and her business to save other women from rape, coercion and trafficking???

Of course the truth is that if she did give up those things, and even shaved her head and hied her unto a monastery she would not save anyone from rape, coercion and trafficking at all...

28064212 wrote: »

Lots of people end up in unpleasant jobs they don't want to do due to financial circumstances.

...and they all, equally deserve our compassion...maybe a bit of a non-issue now, but as the recession and the new employment regulations begin to bite it will soon become one. I believe it is wrong to force anyone to sell sex, but perhaps it is just as wrong to force them to do some other things too?

28064212 wrote: »

As for abuse victims, that's just one more reason to bring prostitution out of the dark corners and into the spotlight. If abuse victims are looking to prostitution because of what happened to them, do you think the legality or realities of prostitution matters one iota to them?

Everything I have every seen points me to the conclusion that the connection between sexual abuse and prostitution os a combination of coincidence and expedient urban legend.

• Coincidence, because one of the biggest factors in entering prostitution is an absence of family supports and/or ties...a near inevitable consequence of interfamily childhood abuse.
• Expedient urban legend, because, the growing "rescue industry" is notoriously resistant to the rather obvious connection between prostitution and financial necessity...perhaps, not least because if that notion gained too much momentum people might start to want the available funds given to the women directly tosort out their lives rather than to the NGOs to pay themselves generous salaries...or perhaps they are just not very worldly?

28064212 wrote: »

Why not be able to actually talk about it in a mature society? Where's the regulation of the industry, instead of looking to prohibition, which has never solved any societal problem?

Totally...in every other place in history (including the 1993 sexual offences act), prohibition has delivered carte blanche to organised crime and all the violence and abuse that brings with it.

Do people never learn?

Eileen_Lang

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Really - are you the only ex-prostitute who has had a story to tell? I actually feel pretty angry with the way you put other woman down at this stage.

I, in turn, feel pretty angry with the way these women are manipulating a very serious issue, for personal attention.

sunflower27

neuro-praxis wrote: »

You have astonished me with:

1. Your sheer laziness in reading only a couple of posts; both of her blog and on this thread. It is outlined in DCG's (very short and recent) blog multiple times that she has ceased prostitution and is now living with the suicidal tendencies, PTSD and mess that her involvement with it has left behind.

2. Your callous attitude of "She is getting what she deserves". Just because there are consequences for our choices does not mean that we deserve them. I fundamentally believe we are entitled to second, third, fourth chances and the right to make good and recover from mistakes.

3. Your view of prostitution as a transaction that ought to have no affect on the prostitute. As though money is the cure for what ails ya? "You got paid, didn't you?!" .

I never said it should have no effect. Just that if it did, then why do it? Was the woman in the blog forced into prostituting herself, or did she do it to have an income?

Also, dont put words in my mouth - I was not saying money makes it all OK, just that this blogger was offering a service she was paid for - not a service she was forced to do. She chose to prostitute herself for money. If she wanted to earn money in a different way, then she was able to do so.

She openly talks about the men in derogatory terms for using a service that she provides. Can you explain why it is OK for her to call the men whatever she likes and yet be disgusted that they would dare say anything about her?

fatmammycat

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

You must believe whatever you wish to believe, but, in this instance, you happen to be very wrong. Though I do find it strange that so many people are homing in on *me* for seeing through DCG rather than any of the other people who have seen through her too? Some far more harshly than anything I have said.

So, do you know her or not?

Babybuff

I swore I wouldn't...
Afaik Sunday times validated the authenticity of DCG's blog via twitter. Unless she actually appears here to defend herself I see no point in continuing to question the reliability of her account.

fatmammycat

Babybuff wrote: »

I swore I wouldn't...
Afaik Sunday times validated the authenticity of DCG's blog via twitter. Unless she actually appears here to defend herself I see no point in continuing to question the reliability of her account.

Interesting. Thanks.

Kooli

28064212 wrote: »

Which isn't an argument that was presented. The post you linked to made the argument that woman arguing for the acceptability of prostitution for other women while clearly regarding it unacceptable for herself was some sort of valid point against prostitution.

I didn't think the argument was that this was a valid point against prostitution.

I thought she was more arguing against privileging the views or opinions of women who think prostitution is 'fine' but have absolutely zero personal experience of it, nor would they ever personally engage in it themselves. These women are entitled to hold any opinion they like, but not to have it given as much weight (and certainly not more weight) as a woman who has personal experience of prostitution.

I would like to think the same rules should apply in a thread like this.

Eileen_Lang

Babybuff wrote: »

I swore I wouldn't...
Afaik Sunday times validated the authenticity of DCG's blog via twitter. Unless she actually appears here to defend herself I see no point in continuing to question the reliability of her account.

I very much doubt if "The Sunday Times" would be in a position to validate DCG's blog in any meaningful sense...much less have any reason to...

:rolleyes:

Eileen_Lang

Kooli wrote: »

I didn't think the argument was that this was a valid point against prostitution.

I thought she was more arguing against privileging the views or opinions of women who think prostitution is 'fine' but have absolutely zero personal experience of it, nor would they ever personally engage in it themselves. These women are entitled to hold any opinion they like, but not to have it given as much weight (and certainly not more weight) as a woman who has personal experience of prostitution.

I would like to think the same rules should apply in a thread like this.

I don't think you can fairly privilege the opinions of those who have no intention of being involved in prostitution in the future (whether they have been involved in the past of not) in terms of legislation that will only affect those who will be involved.

If a person has been involved in prostitution and concluded for whatever reason, that the cost was not worth the gain for them, then they are only in a position to decide whether they should be involved in prostitution again, not whther it should be prohibited for others who may be in a different cost to loss ratio and feel quite differently.

Emme

I have read your posts throughout this thread Eileen, and would be very surprised if you weren't working behind the scenes for the pro-prostitution lobby.

I believe DCG's blog is real. I suffered date rape myself some years ago and went through hell afterwards. I was just over 30 at the time! After the rape I became a magnet for predatory men of all kinds. Experiences like this can leave "vulnerable" and "abuse me" written all over a person and draws abusers in. I don't know why, but it does.

DCG's blog really resonated with me and made me understand some of the feelings, reactions and behaviours that I went through in the years after the rape. It made more sense to me than all the therapy I had. I didn't turn to prostitution after the rape but I went through experiences that made me sympathise with prostitutes. Indeed I thought that I was so worthless that men were only sleeping with me because they were too mean to pay for a hooker!

DCG was raped when she was very young. Then she met a much older man who recognised her vulnerability and dragged her down further. This are very plausible experiences and I believe that DCG is real.

Some of the responses on these thread denigrating DCG are sinister and show an underlying misogyny. Neuro-praxis and Fatmammycat, to name a few, make sense but other responses here confirm my opinion that boards can be a very misogynist place.

Anybody who has worked as a prostitute must be extremely hardened or in denial if they cannot empathise and identify with the experiences of DCG.

28064212

Kooli wrote: »

I didn't think the argument was that this was a valid point against prostitution.

I thought she was more arguing against privileging the views or opinions of women who think prostitution is 'fine' but have absolutely zero personal experience of it, nor would they ever personally engage in it themselves

That's an argument. It is not the one that is made in the blog post

If a woman’s attitude is that prostitution is empowering and liberating and as acceptable as it gets, well then why on earth would she be unprepared to use this self-espoused wonderfully affirmative mechanism to keep the wolf from her own door?

A woman who says that prostitution is fine, yet accepts unemployment over prostitution in her own life, may say what she likes – what she has demonstrated is that it is not fine.

Let us remember that actions speak louder than words, and that the insincerity of such women is clearly expressed when they shape their lives so as to communicate ‘prostitution is fine… but not for me’.

Those quotes are the argument put forward, and that is the one that I dismissed as totally nonsensical since it would apply to any job that a particular person thought 'fine, but not for them'.

Kooli wrote: »

These women are entitled to hold any opinion they like, but not to have it given as much weight (and certainly not more weight) as a woman who has personal experience of prostitution.

Certainly not more, but certainly not less. A personal experience of prostitution gives more weight to the discussion about that personal experience. It does not make their arguments in the general more valid.

Kooli wrote: »

I would like to think the same rules should apply in a thread like this.

Thankfully, given that this is a mostly anonymous medium, they don't. Discussion points are either valid or not valid, they don't become "more" valid because of who said them

Eileen_Lang

Emme wrote: »

I have read your posts throughout this thread Eileen, and would be very surprised if you weren't working behind the scenes for the pro-prostitution lobby.

Not exactly yes, and not exactly no...I am an independent activist, always have been, always will be.

Let me spell one thing out:

I am just as appalled by "Turn Off the Blue Light" as "Turn Off the Red Light", because that is, to all intents and purposes, a group of those who organise prostitution lobbying for legislation that will increase their power and profit as the expense of actual sex workers. (And the irony of the fundamental similarity between the motivation of the two groups has not escaped me)

I would not support either group if a gun was held to my head.

But I most certainly am dedicated to a rationalised return to the decriminalised state that existed between 1983 and 1993...not least because that is already proven to all but eradicate pimping and coercion, but also because live is hard enough for a prostitute without people far better off than she is making it even harder than it needs to be to suit their whims and fancies.

Emme wrote: »

Anybody who has worked as a prostitute must be extremely hardened or in denial if they cannot empathise and identify with the experiences of DCG.

No...just in a lot closer touch with reality.