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. 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.
fatmammycat wrote: » I'm sorry you went through something like that and glad to read you came out the other side. It's devastating to be so abused, not everyone has the fortitude to speak of it so bluntly. It's one of the things I identified with DCG too, and glad she is equally as forthright in what she says.
Eileen_Lang wrote: » 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:
Badhb wrote: » Are you sure about this?
Babybuff wrote: » http://twitter.com/#!/JohnMooneyST/status/171362093268873217
Eileen_Lang wrote: » But you are not disputing that someone should be looking at what those statistics mean? Or suggesting there is merit in just ignoring them?
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.
Stella Marr wrote: » Dublin Call Girl is a brilliant and fiercely honest writer. Re Eileen's comment: 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!I must say this comment sounds like it came from a pimp Eileen -- I am not saying you are one, mind you -- but it's very creepy and very very strange coming from a prostitution survivor. The vast majority of us treat each other with compassion, like soldiers who were injured in the same battle. Dublin Call Girl is writing about the attitudes of men toward prostituted women. The reviews are very revealing about the men. That's the point. Not whether or not she wants to read the reviews. She's an artist.
"Eileen Lang" exists only for this issue...and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise.
Emme wrote: » That struck me too, Stella. I suggested that she might be working for the pro-prostitution lobby and she didn't deny it.
Stella Marr wrote: » Actually Maple, there's nothing disingenuous about what Sally's saying. As a prostitution survivor, I know from experience that nothing is more threatening to Johns and the sex industry lobby than eloquent, empowered survivors speaking out. Every time one of us dares tell the truth about our experiences we're dragged through the mud. It's not debate, it's an attack. It would not be tolerated if we were privileged women talking about an abusive boyfriend or a sexual assault. But it is gleefully allowed because we're members of the prostituted class -- and thus seen as subhuman by many.
Eileen_Lang wrote: » (I'd Better set StellaMarr to "ignore" - if you want to know why I cannot take a word she says seriously read her vanity blogs )
Maple wrote: » Perhaps you could reread my post. The disingenuous comment was in relation to the ladies lounge forum.
EMF2010 wrote: » The language used also surprised me, the term 'civilians' for those not actively involved just struck me as a desperate effort to normalise what these people are doing.
Eileen_Lang wrote: » Nothing is more threatening to self indulgent, attention seekers than a mouthy ex-hooker who actually cares about the very real women who depend on selling sex to keep a roof over their childrens' heads, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs...in a recession that will not be offering them alternatives. ...and will literally NEVER give up trying to protect them as best she can... (I'd Better set StellaMarr to "ignore" - if you want to know why I cannot take a word she says seriously read her vanity blogs )
Emme wrote: » Does this mouthy ex-hooker care so much about the very real women that she does them a favour and pimps them out? Takes a substantial cut of the earnings which are to go towards keeping a roof over their children's heads, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs? Tells them that the deal she is offering them is the best they can get, and there is no other way of supporting their children in a recession? Eileen Lang, I hope you are not a pimp, but I strongly suspect that you could be.
Emme wrote: » Does this mouthy ex-hooker care so much about the very real women that she does them a favour and pimps them out? Takes a substantial cut of the earnings which are to go towards keeping a roof over their children's heads, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs? Tells them that the deal she is offering them is the best they can get, and there is no other way of supporting their children in a recession? QUOTE] Good point.
Millicent wrote: » Jesus, that's a bit much. Eileen has said she does not like pimps in previous posts. Just because everybody does not agree with her stance, does not give anyone licence to cast aspersions on her. Her opinion and experiences are just as valid as DCG's, whether people agree with her views or not.