Sally J wrote: » Sorry but I just HAD to respond to this comment. Eileen, I KNOW DUBLINCALLGIRL PERSONALLY and because I do, I know damn well that you don't, because if you did you wouldn't even think of writing nonsense like the above. Her blog is valid, her experiences are valid, SHE is valid, regardless how little these realities suit your perspective and agenda. No doubt your delusion will prompt you to doubt that I'm telling the truth. You might be able to lie to people on here about knowing DCG but you won't be able to lie to me. If you'd like to have a shot send me a pm describing how she looks, sounds, dresses and other personal details about her life not posted in her blog. Your nonsense about knowing her blog is not valid will not last five seconds with me and you know it. And for the record, Neuro-Praxis has restored my faith in humanity by the way s/he has posted on this thread. Of all the responses nobody else has really 'got' this issue as thoroughly as that.
Sacred_git wrote: » the girl is a prostitute, she is being paid to provide a service,which would also include faking it? clearly she has a problem with this side of things, maybe she should find a new career. I have no sympathy for anyone in this trade unless of course she was/is forced into it, she needs to do a better job, shes being paid to do so. And as for the inspirational comment/good read, great writer - you need to wake up!
Eileen_Lang wrote: » Unfortunately I am in the awkward position of knowing for sure that blog is not valid...so I cannot, in all conscience, pretend that it is...that is the most neutral way I can possibly put it...and I am sorry if it make you uncomfortable but probably not as uncomfortable as it makes me.
fatmammycat wrote: » I don't believe you do *know* it's fiction. I think you have tried to discredit DCG because her experiences do not mirror your own, and now that you've failed in that regard you're pretending you know who she is.
midlandsmissus wrote: » JaneOrange wrote: » I'm not the one on a crusade here Eileen, you are. I have nothing to prove. All I'm doing is asking you to explain your intentions or agenda in a clear and concise way, so I and others can understand. You're getting yourself nowhere by writing pages and pages of brain dribble, hoping someone will get it. I agree, Eileen Lang if you want to keep contributing please change your writing style to a more readable one, it is bringing down the whole thread.
JaneOrange wrote: » I'm not the one on a crusade here Eileen, you are. I have nothing to prove. All I'm doing is asking you to explain your intentions or agenda in a clear and concise way, so I and others can understand. You're getting yourself nowhere by writing pages and pages of brain dribble, hoping someone will get it.
Babybuff wrote: » I need to take a breather from this thread and while I've said as much as I think I can about how I felt wrt the topic (DCG's blog, a view I continue to support) I think it's important to note that on the issue of prostitution in general I think most people on boards would support any action which protects those who work in the industry.This was my first post on boards under this account and I wasn't aware at all at the time that the issue would become the subject of any kind of depth discussion, in fact that entire thread gives a much better insight into the leanings of many posters here and as you can see there appears to be a majority in favour of some form of regulation, so lets get that much out of the way. But this isn't a political forum and there isn't a political agenda here. Eileen, I have no doubt that you have plenty to say on the issue and I am still interested in your viewpoint as long as it's concise and makes a point without having to detract or denigrate the points made by others who have shared their experiences while doing so, and in this case DCG's blog is as valid as anyone elses. wish you the best either way
JaneOrange wrote: » I've had this account since December. I don't mean to attack you, i'm just trying to point out that you're getting yourself nowhere by going on the way you are. I came onto this thread with an interest into what other people thought of DCG's blog, as I was so affected by it myself. Then after reading all of your comments, I was confused as to what your direction was.
JaneOrange wrote: » That's all I want to know, what are you getting out of this?
Eileen_Lang wrote: » You activated your account just to make personal attacks on me so I think I had better stop feeding you now.
Eileen_Lang wrote: » What are you doing to help anyone?
JaneOrange wrote: » Why do you keep winking at me? What is your agenda here? I looked at your website and I'm still no clearer on what you're trying to achieve. What outside of trolling around the internet are you doing to try and help women in similar situations to the one you found yourself in?
JaneOrange wrote: » Just caught up on this thread after trawling through many essay long comments. I've been reading dublinCallGirl's blog for the last few days and find it really interesting and quite powerful. I find this quote from Eileen interesting, that she now claims she knows who the writer is behind the blog. It seems to be the climax to a long line of fairly conflicting and attention seeking rants. I'm just wondering if there is some jealousy or resentment on your part Eileen, that this girl is getting a lot of positive feedback and attention for her blog in contrast with the stopthelights website you seem to be pushing at people.
JaneOrange wrote: » Yeah.... i'm not the writer if that's what you're getting at. You're also proving that you're not a very credible source of information.
Eileen_Lang wrote: » Of course I do...why else do you think I haven't named her?
BarackPyjama wrote: » Personally I think that there are at least a fair ratio of woman selling sex for a living simply because it pays extremely well and is a better alternative to working for minimum wage.
BarackPyjama wrote: » Do you assert that there are some women without any scruples towards sex that would prefer to sell sex for €200 an hour rather than work in, say, Spar or McDonalds for €9 an hour?
BarackPyjama wrote: » Personally I can't think of anything worse (than selling ones body for sex) myself. But it's an honest question. I've met loads of 'normal' men and women who'd get up on a barber's floor after a few pints so it's not a huge stretch of the imagination.
neuro-praxis wrote: » I presume you are asking me if I agree? Obviously I haven't asserted anything of the kind here. Do I think there are some women who would rather sell sex than work in McDonalds? I don't know. You would be better off asking someone who has been a prostitute. Incidentally, it's not that easy to get a job in Spar or McDonalds at the moment, so I'm not sure we're talking about preference.
neuro-praxis wrote: » As someone who has only had sex in a loving context, it's a massive stretch of the imagination for me.
neuro-praxis wrote: » However I can understand a woman being coerced into prostitution, or turning to it in dire circumstances.
Personally I can't think of anything worse (than selling ones body for sex) myself. But it's an honest question. I've met loads of 'normal' men and women who'd get up on a barber's floor after a few pints so it's not a huge stretch of the imagination.
neuro-praxis wrote: » Eileen_Lang I think you are mistaken in what you consider to be flawed logic. "Opposing viewpoint" does not equate "flawed logic".
neuro-praxis wrote: » you lack manners in your discourse
neuro-praxis wrote: » Eileen_Lang I think you are mistaken in what you consider to be flawed logic. "Opposing viewpoint" does not equate "flawed logic". Flawed logic is when one idea cannot flow logically from another. All of my ideas are linked by logical processes that are shaped by my values. We have differing values, therefore differing logical thought processes. Secondly there is a difference between an assertion and a presumption. I do not presume that your body is your most precious possession: I assert it. I also assert that prostitution is not the only option for an intelligent, clear thinking, non-addicted woman. I don't presume it. I assert it. Thirdly I believe I have responded fairly but I don't think there's any point in continuing. Not just because we fundamentally disagree but because you lack manners in your discourse and I can't be doing with that. The best of luck with your campaign to have prostitution enshrined in law.
The_Thing wrote: » Thanks for the clarification, Eileen, and good luck with the article(s);
The_Thing wrote: » Did the Indo give you a reason why?
The_Thing wrote: » Last year when Mick Wallace TD suggested that prostitution be legalised he was quickly silenced for deviating from Ruhama's game plan.
