nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl

neuro-praxis

http://secretdiaryofadublincallgirl.wordpress.com/

This was linked to by JuliusCaesar in the other thread currently running about prostitution ("Would you?"), but I felt it is such compelling reading for Irish women that it deserved a re-post here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stella Marr

Re COYOTE: The current Director of COYOTE Los Angeles is Norma Jean Almodovar, a woman who was convicted of pandering while she was working as a police officer.
http://www.iswface.org/NJAbio.html

COYOTE has also been implicated in the commercial sexual exploitation of very young women.
http://tinyurl.com/7tchwej

I was mistaken about the Sex Workers Project -- I confused it with the sex workers outreach project

As I stated before, the International Union of Sex Workers, which SWA Ireland links to, has as their chief a male pimp who owns one of the largest escort services in London.
http://ssy.org.uk/2010/09/prostitution-the-abolition-of-the-victim-and-post-modernisms-defence-of-the-status-quo/

Eileen it's very telling that rather than admitting you were wrong, you're now suggesting that Maggie McNeill didn't mean what she wrote in the bio on her blog.

The bio on her blog clearly states: I'm a retired call girl and madam born in 1966, now retired to my country estate

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/author/maggiemcneill/

Stella Marr

Eileen you are disingenously engaging in disinformation while accusing me of 'making allegations.' I have provided ample evidence that what I had said about all these organizations is true. You yourself admit Robyn Few was convicted of conspiracy to promote prostitution. Just because on her personal website she makes the ridiculous claim that John Ashcroft was targeting her for terroism (why?) doesn't mean its true. She actually admits her conviction!

Stella Marr

These bogus 'sex worker unions' are a terrible international problem. As you can see pimps found and/or lead them. How can someone who profits vastly from the commercial seual exploitation of vulnerable young women be entrusted with their protection? They cannot. They will be looking after their own financial interests. All these pimps will always say they are sex workers too -- in order to propagate the charade and if they are women because punters/Johns love to believe it. But they'll admit they are selling women somewhere, because they want the business. Then they use any 'sex worker union' events to market themselves, recruit girls, and solicit business. Most of these organizations solicit donations from people, and the money is used to protect pimps and Johns rather than help women in prostitution. Sometimes these pimp-founded organizations even get government grants.

http://tinyurl.com/7tckg68

Eileen I think you've proven yourself an unreliable and disingenuous participant in this discussion.

Eileen_Lang

Stella Marr wrote: »

Re COYOTE: The current Director of COYOTE Los Angeles is Norma Jean Almodovar, a woman who was convicted of pandering while she was working as a police officer.

That charge was a technicality and a lot more complicated than Norma Jean actually pimping though, wasn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHWFSb5CKCI (nothing really raunchy, even in the sidebar, as far as I can see, but maybe not suitable at work?)

Stella Marr wrote: »

COYOTE has also been implicated in the commercial sexual exploitation of very young women.
http://tinyurl.com/7tchwej

Do you want to take a second try at that link because I think you posted the wrong page (easy done on google books maybe specify the page?) because that link makes no reference to very young women at all.?

Stella Marr wrote: »

I was mistaken about the Sex Workers Project -- I confused it with the sex workers outreach project

Easy enough done...as stated this would be the sex workers outreach project:

"Sex Workers Outreach Project-USA is a national social justice network dedicated to the fundamental human rights of sex workers and their communities, focusing on ending violence and stigma through education and advocacy." - and I found a link to Robin Few on youtube - see above that gave more details about her conviction under the patriot act and it's relationship to her activism rather than actual pimping (I think if you try to post details of anything under the patriot act the CIA nab you before you can hit "submit"?

)

Stella Marr wrote: »

As I stated before, the International Union of Sex Workers, which SWA Ireland links to, has as their chief a male pimp who owns one of the largest escort services in London.
http://ssy.org.uk/2010/09/prostitution-the-abolition-of-the-victim-and-post-modernisms-defence-of-the-status-quo/

But why go for something so extreme, subjective and unsubstantiated, why not go for his profile in the Guardian? (Only just found it myself, but that's because I couldn't think of his name for the life of me)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/douglas-fox

Though I always respect honesty, I would never be comfortable with a man who runs an escort agency if he came to me with wings, a halo and a personal reference from Jesus.

(I must also add, in checking my archive that *IS* indeed the same guy who seemed so nice and empathetic when I dealt with him, but hey...whoever got to run an escort agency by impressing women as a d*ckhead on first sight...rather relieved I didn't get round to sending him the article I promised him now or I really WOULD have been embarassed.)

Stella Marr wrote: »

Eileen it's very telling that rather than admitting you were wrong, you're now suggesting that Maggie McNeill didn't mean what she wrote in the bio on her blog.

I haven't said anything about MaggieONeill to "admit" I was wrong about I just asked you to name her and when you did said I had never noticed her claim to be a madam before. One was a question, the other was simple fact.

Stella Marr wrote: »

The bio on her blog clearly states: I'm a retired call girl and madam born in 1966, now retired to my country estate

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/author/maggiemcneill/

It just looks like it might be humour or irony to me and she does make it very clear that she intends to conceal her identity...so I have mailed her to ask her to settle it...there is nothing more to be said until she answers...

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

That charge was a technicality and a lot more complicated than Norma Jean actually pimping though, wasn't it?

Actually Eileen, no it wasn't technically complicated. She was convicted of pandering, as I stated, which is a legal term for what we think of as pimping: i.e. attempting to sell a woman for money.
You are actively engaging in disinformation.

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

But why go for something so extreme, subjective and unsubstantiated, why not go for his profile in the Guardian? (Only just found it myself, but that's because I couldn't think of his name for the life of me)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/douglas-fox

.

So you impugn my source, but then your link in the Guardian states that Fox is indeed a pimp who owns an escort agency.

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

I found a link to Robin Few on youtube - see above that gave more details about her conviction under the patriot act and it's relationship to her activism rather than actual pimping (I think if you try to post details of anything under the patriot act the CIA nab you before you can hit "submit"? )
QUOTE]

Thing is, Robyn Few pleaded GUILTY to conspiracy to commit prostitution. And the CIA did not "nab her." It was the FBI. She pleaded guilt in federal court. The conviction was not related to the patriot act. SHe's just making excuses for herself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Few

As a woman who was prostituted for ten years, I think prostituted women have the right to speak out when those convicted of pimping and/or pandering or admitted madams/pimps are running organizations that are supposed to serve us. These pimp use these organizations to recruit women to work for them, as well as market their business. It's wrong on every level.

Eileen_Lang

Stella Marr wrote: »

Actually Eileen, no it wasn't technically complicated. She was convicted of pandering, as I stated, which is a legal term for what we think of as pimping: i.e. attempting to sell a woman for money.
You are actively engaging in disinformation.

Yes, but as you probably do not know the legal use of a term can be very different to the common use of a term, and under California State law the charge of pandering could (at that time) be applied to anything that could be construed as encouraging a person into prostitution...the fact is Norma Jean never lived, or attempted to live of the earnings of another prostitute a day in her life, and the actual case brought against her, despite maximum prejudice, did not even claim that she did...

Something similar is very probably true of Robin Few who is a lifelong political activist in several areas, but I am certainly not going to attempt to hack the homeland security database to find out (someone might shoot me :eek: )

Before I think of someone as a pimp they have to *actually* live off other people's earnings from selling sex...not get charged on a technicality to shut them up about something that is embarassing the wrong people. :rolleyes:

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Do you want to take a second try at that link because I think you posted the wrong page (easy done on google books maybe specify the page?) because that link makes no reference to very young women at all.?

Actually Eileen that link includes information about an 18 year old woman whow as commercially sexually exploited through COYOTE. You have to read more than the first page -- the info is on the top of the second page

Here's the link again:
http://tinyurl.com/7m59g7x

Eileen_Lang

Stella Marr wrote: »

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

I found a link to Robin Few on youtube - see above that gave more details about her conviction under the patriot act and it's relationship to her activism rather than actual pimping (I think if you try to post details of anything under the patriot act the CIA nab you before you can hit "submit"? )

Thing is, Robyn Few pleaded GUILTY to conspiracy to commit prostitution. And the CIA did not "nab her." It was the FBI. She pleaded guilt in federal court. The conviction was not related to the patriot act. SHe's just making excuses for herself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Few

She was not even charged with pimping...just "Promoting prostitution" which could even be applied to her work with Coyote or similar organisations (as she was involved in since the late 90s) :rolleyes:

...and you misunderstood me...I did not mean Robyn was nabbed by the CIA, I meant that the risk of being nabbed by the CIA for revealing details of any action taken under the patriot act was probably why nobody, from any side of the debate seems to have put the specifics on the web...

But that was also wrong, because, as any fools knows, if you did that, you would, in fact, be nabbed by homeland security, NOT the CIA

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

...the fact is Norma Jean never lived, or attempted to live of the earnings of another prostitute a day in her life, and the actual case brought against her, despite maximum prejudice, did not even claim that she did...

Something similar is very probably true of Robin Few... but I am certainly not going to attempt to hack the homeland security database to find out (someone might shoot me :eek: )

Before I think of someone as a pimp they have to *actually* live off other people's earnings from selling sex...not get charged on a technicality to shut them up about something that is embarassing the wrong people. :rolleyes:

Actually Eileen, the word 'pimp' means someone who sells women, even if they don't completely live off the earnings. They couldn't say Norma Jean was living off the earnings of other womens' prostitution since at the time she was collecting a paycheck as a police officer. She was doing her best to entice a friend to see men for money, and Norma Jean called these men and had her friend speak with them. It seems pretty likely to me that Norma Jean stood to make some money there. You say it's a fact Norma Jean never made a living off of pimping, but you have no way of knowing that -- the woman was convicted of pandering, a legal term which meets the dictionary definition of pimping.

So, I've proven that COYOTE, the Sex Workers' Outreach Project, PONY, and the International Union of Sex Workers are all headed or founded by those profitting off the commercial sexual exploitation of women, including those with convictions of conspiracy to promote prostitution and pandering.

As a woman who was prostituted for ten years, I think it's very wrong for anyone convicted of pimping or pandering to be founding or heading an organization purporting to help women in prostitution. These people have a history of commercial sexual exploitation. They use these organizations to recruit vulnerable young women and market their business to men. It's horrendous on many levels. . For someone who says she cares about the women in prostitution you seem pretty blase about putting those convicted of or admitting to pimping or pandering in charge of their protection. Strange.

No one would say that women victims of domestic violence should have to accept a wife beater as the head of an organization that claims to represent them. It would seem preposterous. So why should women in prostitution have to accept this? And why should we be raked over the coals for stating facts and the obvious?

I'm leaving this thread now. I've said all I need to say.

Eileen_Lang

Stella Marr wrote: »

Actually Eileen that link includes information about an 18 year old woman whow as commercially sexually exploited through COYOTE. You have to read more than the first page -- the info is on the top of the second page

Here's the link again:
http://tinyurl.com/7m59g7x

Be cool...it would just be easier if you had given a page number in the first place, google books can be very volatile to search...especially when you don't have a clue which search term you are looking for.

However, let's just see if I got the right bit?

That would be the case of M. Hanson who had been a sreet prostitute since she was 12 and claims she knew the women from Coyote since she was 14? She then claimed that Coyote helped her relocate to a legal brothel in Nevada as soon as she was 18 (in about 1978 when Norma Jean was still pretty much in school...a LONG way from Nevada)

20 years later, in about 1998 M Hanson claimed she was suicidal and blamed that on Coyote...in some kind of paper co written by Christine Stark who wrote the book you linked.

Not exactly a scathing indictment.

(Anyone who thinks Coyote should have forced M.Hanson into the care system has no idea what the care system was like, I recommend a book called "Sleepers" for some idea of the care system at that time.)

Eileen_Lang

Stella Marr wrote: »

The blog Feminist Ire is written by a woman who has never been prostituted named Wendy Lyon, and she works with Turn Off the Blue Light and posts on the blog of an admitted madam.

Wendy Lyon (who is otherwise engaged at present) sent me a message to quote here about this so I had better post it:

"I am a member of the Sex Workers Alliance of Ireland; my "affiliation" with TOBL ("Turn Off the Blue Light") is limited to posting on their online forums, which makes me as affiliated with them as Stella is with FeministIre."

Adding a reply from MaggieMcNeil the admitted madam referred to above:

Stella Marr wrote: »

Eileen you enjoy Maggie's blog, yet you've never glanced at its "About Maggie McNeill Section?"

From her blog: I'm a retired call girl and madam born in 1966, now retired to my country estate

Call Girls do not retire to country estates, let me tell you. And in fact, she admits she was a madam.

MaggieMcNeil by email wrote:

I spent the money to put an ad in the phone book and hire an operator, and for a fee ($100 per successful call) I let other girls make money off of my ad and kept them safe by calling them in and out and providing a lawyer to bail them out if they were arrested. That’s it.

My country estate is just that; a large parcel of land in the country. I could call it a “ranch”, except that I don’t raise any cattle on it so that wouldn’t really be accurate. The absurd assertion that “call girls do not retire to country estates” is idiotic at best; some do, some don’t. Some marry and live in the suburbs, some rent mansions, some own condos; it all depends on the girl and how/why she retired. As it so happens I like country life and I married a man who was willing to support me. We’re not wealthy by any stretch; perhaps Stella has some exaggerated sense of what large parcels of land cost in the rural American South. Mine cost all of $90,000 US, less than one lot in the suburbs of a major US city. Our house is large, but we’re doing most of it ourselves and it’s still under construction.

You have my permission to quote as much of this letter as you like; I have nothing to hide. And if Stella wants to see pictures of my place (there was a photo taken inside my barn on Thursday’s column and I can send you others) I’ll be happy to oblige."

Still love Maggie's honesty and the way she thinks, but cannot ever feel happy with the escort service...I really do want to see an end to people making that kind of profit out of other people selling sex.

Since I was 13 (10 years before I ever sold sex) I have had a very firmly held belief that if you sell something as personal to you as sex, then *ALL* that money should be for you too keep for yourself (that's why I am against taxation). Nothing will ever change my belief, but that does not oblige anyone to agree with me.

Prostitution is full of grey areas...that's why the Japanese always called it "the floating world" - because the minute you thought you had the shape of it it would shift and seem like something else.

Obviously, a lot of the things I have explored in the past couple of hours are WAY out of my comfort zone, but apart from the fact that my comfort zone never has, will or should set the limits for the whole world, it is realistically possible to decriminalise one person selling sex to another person of their own free will and for their exclusive gain without enabling any of the other aspects I personally loathe and despise, like pimping...in fact the more enabled and empowered independents are, the harder it is to pimp.

The fact still remains that they are plenty of women who depend on selling sex for life's necessities, and I do not believe anyone has a moral right to take that income away...and there are also plenty of women who depend on prostitution for a better lifestyle for themself and their families, and though I cannot personally relate to that, intellectually I cannot really see that anyone has a moral right to take away their income either...

Thank you for your forebearance.

Now I have to add another footnote about Robyn Few, which is out of my comfort zone in more than one way. When I dug her out completely she was unmistakeably an old e-friend from the late 90s (Who not only explained "feminist porn" to me...my best guess was "hot guys ironing", but apparently not...but also explained the real life effects of the bizarre Californian Law that banned smoking in bars...did you EVER hear such crazy?), and sadly, just as unmistakeably dying, or even dead towards the end of a long fight with cancer...

Unmistakeable because we are the exact same age, left home on exactly the same year...with a very similar temperament and yet totally different attitudes to so many things...one of those strange connections you make in life and may not always remember, but never fully forget...

She couldn't get her head round me doing sex work even though I hated it, that really freaked her out...and I cannot get my head round Robyn's "sex worker positive" attitude at all, let alone her openly admitting to being a madam without shame...but it's not that simple...so I would rather let Robyn speak for herself, even if, in 3 dimensions, her speaking days may well be over:

http://robynfew.com/videos.html

You may find yourself agreeing with things she says that I do not agree with myself...hear her out anyway...I don't know everything, and one of the thing we *DID* have in common was that she never forgot to care as much about other people as about herself...

Stella Marr

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Be cool...it would just be easier if you had given a page number in the first place, google books can be very volatile to search...especially when you don't have a clue which search term you are looking for.

Actually that link also revealed that most of the women in COYOTE weren't actually prostitutes, they were women who thought it was edgy or cool to say they were, and perhaps they might have sex with a male friend or two and he'd give them money. In other words COYOTE was a fraud.

Here's that link again.
*http://tinyurl.com/7m59g7x*

So I have established unequivocally that COYOTE, the Sex Workers Outreach Project, The International Union of Sex Workers, and PONY are all either founded by, or headed by people convicted of pimping/pandering or who are admitted pimps.

It's comletely unacceptable say it's fine for people like this to be leading organizations that are supposed to help the prostituted. Pimps of any form need to be removed from the dialogue about prostitution. They will always engage in misinformation, and try to dominate the conversation.

We survivors will no longer silently accept that.

Stella Marr

It's common practice for pimps, Johns/punters and others in the sex industry lobby to intimidate survivors when we speak out.

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-opposition-the-sex-industrys-supporters-uncovered/

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/when-survivors-speak-out-johnspunters-and-pimps-strike-back-online/

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/methods-of-the-pimp-mind/

http://survivorsconnect.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/prostitutions-fine-but-not-for-me/

I'm leaving this thread now. I've said all I need. Many thanks to everyone

Cavehill Red

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.

Forgive me, but I nearly broke my sh1te laughing at this.
Pray tell, how does a journalist confirm the veracity of the many events details on that blog by way of confirming the existence of a twitter account?

Cavehill Red

JaneOrange wrote: »

https://twitter.com/#!/JohnMooneyST/status/168275335119515648

Oh come on. John Mooney is a well respected and very credible journalist, he knows the woman behind the blog. He wouldn't waste his time on a it if he had any suspicion of it being fake. I'd believe him over Eileen any day. It's real, get over it. (excuse my arrogant tone..)

John has no way of knowing whether her story is true or not. As a journalist with an eye to a story, he most certainly would be happy to publish a 'human interest' account in the full knowledge that its veracity would not be challenged in the only way that matters to the media, ie legally. The fact that he accepts it (or says he does) or that he published a story about it in no way indicates that it is true.

danubia

stella and eileen,i have to speak i find both you very selfish. i believe you work as prostitute before, stella in newyork and eileen in older times as you say no advertise on website. you both make the accusations about other people very free and nasty.you both say pretend escort survivor or pimps organisation try to make you silent. i say is is people like YOU both make it impossible for person working as escort in ireland now in the real time to speak as we cannot without horrible lies said and attack on us.why do not you both say what you think without so many attack and allow other persons to speak???

Babybuff

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Forgive me, but I nearly broke my sh1te laughing at this.
Pray tell, how does a journalist confirm the veracity of the many events details on that blog by way of confirming the existence of a twitter account?

you should have laughed a little bit harder and actually broken your ****e, would have served this discussion better.

JaneOrange

Cavehill Red wrote: »

John has no way of knowing whether her story is true or not. As a journalist with an eye to a story, he most certainly would be happy to publish a 'human interest' account in the full knowledge that its veracity would not be challenged in the only way that matters to the media, ie legally. The fact that he accepts it (or says he does) or that he published a story about it in no way indicates that it is true.

I have no interest in going over the validity of DCG's blog again. Trying to prove it's fake is completely pointless. Nearly as pointless as this thread has become.

It takes more moronic imagination to reason why someone would set up a fake blog about something so personal than to take it for what it is and applaud the positive effect it's having for other women that relate to it.

No one is achieving anything here apart from maybe Eileen's ego, which is a pity since there is so much valid material to discuss from the blog.

Babybuff wrote: »

you should have laughed a little bit harder and actually broken your ****e, would have served this discussion better.

Well said Babybuff. Well said.

The_Thing

In 2010 Canadian laws banning prostitution were overturned when Judge Susan Himel declared that the laws violated a constitutional guarantee of "the rights to life, liberty and safety".

She went on to say:

"I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public," Himel said.

"These laws, individually and together, force prostitutes to choose between their liberty interest and their right to security of the person as protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-decriminalizes-prostitution-in-ontario-but-ottawa-mulls-appeal/article1730433/page1/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-decriminalizes-prostitution-in-ontario-but-ottawa-mulls-appeal/article1730433/page2/

careymary

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

I have a feeling that may just be her sense of humour (perhaps even the "Madam" part? I was once capable of being a "proper little Madam" myself, after all) - but, of course, I have no way of knowing...perhaps there is a way to ask her too?

This is the moment that I decided the thread was over for me, all this bickering back and forth and then when facts are presented, this is the reply, good luck to ya!

Cavehill Red

JaneOrange wrote: »

I have no interest in going over the validity of DCG's blog again. Trying to prove it's fake is completely pointless. Nearly as pointless as this thread has become.
It takes more moronic imagination to reason why someone would set up a fake blog about something so personal than to take it for what it is and applaud the positive effect it's having for other women that relate to it.

Nothing is true until proven so. If you'd like me to consider this blog to be true, then prove it is.
Because, to be honest, it reads like horse**** to me.

Eileen_Lang

careymary wrote: »

This is the moment that I decided the thread was over for me, all this bickering back and forth and then when facts are presented, this is the reply, good luck to ya!

No, the real reply came later, MaggieONeill was kind enough to send a very honest and detailed response, which I posted here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77279092&postcount=314

The point being, why conjecture about what somebady is really doing, or really means, when it is almost as easy, and sometimes far more rewarding, to simply ask them.

Eileen_Lang

Cavehill Red wrote: »

John has no way of knowing whether her story is true or not. As a journalist with an eye to a story, he most certainly would be happy to publish a 'human interest' account in the full knowledge that its veracity would not be challenged in the only way that matters to the media, ie legally. The fact that he accepts it (or says he does) or that he published a story about it in no way indicates that it is true.

Taking about 10 steps back, if I had read that same tweet about a topic I knew nothing about I would have just assumed he meant that she wasn't something he made up as a device to convey a set of ideas, and that he had verified she was not a 13 year old boy in Clondalkin who needs his modem confiscating...

Because I think that is about all any journalist could, or should, be expected to do about something so subjective.

JaneOrange

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Taking about 10 steps back, if I had read that same tweet about a topic I knew nothing about I would have just assumed he meant that she wasn't something he made up as a device to convey a set of ideas, and that he had verified she was not a 13 year old boy in Clondalkin who needs his modem confiscating...

Because I think that is about all any journalist could, or should, be expected to do about something so subjective.

Yes, because 13 year old boys are so in touch with the emotional damage of ex prostitutes these days. Wake the f**k up.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nothing is true until proven so. If you'd like me to consider this blog to be true, then prove it is.
Because, to be honest, it reads like horse**** to me.

What proof do you want?! Short of me going around your house with photo's of the girl being f**ked by a punter, I doubt anything is going to change your opinion. Even then i'm sure you'd claim there would be no way of proving it was a punter in the picture.

JimmyWontFixIt wrote: »

Its actually moronic to believe everything you read is true. Because there are some as*holes out there in this world. Reading about something is no different from someone you know saying "X..Y..Z" happened. Its what is said & how its said that makes you believe its true or not.

As for this being true?
On one hand parts of it seems to be wrote with a sort of passion. On the other, parts of it are wrote as if it were a story I am reading. Setting up scenarios, pacing, emotion etc.

For me, its just lacking that physical connection to feel its a true story. I just cant help but feel this is something that was created to engage me into it. Written as how a fictional story would be written.

I call BS in my opinion.

It 'seems' to have some sort of passion? Are you a critic or something? It has narrative. She's able to write about her life in a very readable way. That's a good thing, it's gets a point across to the masses, unlike the ramblings of other ex-prostistues I could mention.

You can't have a physical connection in a piece of writing you complete moron. What you're looking for is similar proof to our little friend above. In which case, might I suggest you go find a prostitute and ask her if you can sit in on a few sessions with some questionable punters. You might feel more 'engaged' with the issue then.

I call Bulls**t on this thread. You should go buy 'Between the Sheets' I'm sure you'd be much more comfortable reading that.

sambuka41

This isn't completely relevant to the direction this thread has taken but anyway, I was watching a documentary on the Green River killer last night and it made me think of this thread. In it they were discussing how his father would bring him along the strip in Seattle and tell him how disgusting and filthy all the prostitutes are, then leave his son in the car while he went off and used a prostitute.

Gary Ridgeway murdered at least 48 prostitutes (he admitted to over 70). Prostitution is an incredibly risky and dangerous 'choice' if it is a choice at all. We know cruel b*****ds like this exist, and that in a lot of cases serial murderers began with prostitutes, that the likes of Larry Murphy uses prostitutes regularly; yet when a woman comes out to talk about her experiences and how crap it was we don't believe its genuine? (and I DCG isn't even discussing the really scummy potential murderers)

It kind of puts it into perspective for me when discussing the johns; these are the types of men who can degrade women then teach their children to do the same. I can't remember which girl's blog it was in but I read last night about the myth of the "nice john" the Richard Gere, but in reality its far more likely to be some scumbag who thinks women are there to be used, the women in their lives may or may not let them denigrate them so they pay their cash to be able to say and do as they please.

This thread could have been an opportunity to discuss societies attitude towards sex, women, stupid assumptions that all men are sex mad and must have an outlet, the trauma that might result in someone being a prostitute, the fact that Ireland is a deeply traumatised country with a long history of sexual abuse, violence and alcoholism but instead it became about bashing down a woman who had something to say, and dominated by one poster with an agenda.

JaneOrange

I agree with you Sambuka41, it's a missed opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the blog and to look at our own attitudes towards them. Unfortunately, if it's not wrapped in an easy to swallow package, people don't want to believe it. Are we so brainwashed by film and advertising? Or so paranoid that we can't see reality when it's given to us on a plate?

Hopefully outside of this board, the discussion about prostitution has been opened more and people have started to challenge their own opinions on it. Maybe even have more compassion for the women effected by it and become more aware of the realities of it. MAYBE then, more women will feel more safe and able to share their experiences of prostitution. And MAYBE then people will really start listening.

Ickle Magoo

Farewell to JimmyWontFixIt - yet anther site-banned serial re-regger.

JaneOrange, if you cannot discuss matters in a civil manner you will lose your posting rights to this forum - DO NOT swear at other posters and tell them to wake up.

If you have an issue with a post or poster then report it and let the moderators and admin of this site deal with them.

I'd advise that you take the time to read the forum charter here and Boards general posting rules and etiquette here if you wish to continue posting in this forum.

As per site policy, if you have an issue with any moderator instruction or request please contact a relevant moderator via PM - DO NOT drag the thread further off-topic by responding on-thread

Eileen_Lang

The_Thing wrote: »

In 2010 Canadian laws banning prostitution were overturned when Judge Susan Himel declared that the laws violated a constitutional guarantee of "the rights to life, liberty and safety".

She went on to say:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-decriminalizes-prostitution-in-ontario-but-ottawa-mulls-appeal/article1730433/page1/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judge-decriminalizes-prostitution-in-ontario-but-ottawa-mulls-appeal/article1730433/page2/

Thank god somebody in authority has some simple common sense and humanity.