Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl

Eileen_Lang · 26-02-2012 02:05PM

sambuka41 wrote: »

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).

But he also admitted that he chose prostitutes because he knew nobody cared enough about what happened to them to stop him...

...and he was certainly right about the "not caring enough" part as all these people constantly prove by not caring what will happen to prostitutes and their families if the legislate to take their income away.

sambuka41 wrote: »

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

Unless their obsession specifically targets prostitutes (like Jack the Ripper or the Yorkshire Ripper) they are unlikely to begin with prostitutes at all and far more likely to end with them...like the M4 Rapist John Steed. There has been research that suggest the reason for this is that prostitutes are more accessible than other women and less likely to put up resistance.

sambuka41 wrote: »

that the likes of Larry Murphy uses prostitutes regularly;

We don't actually know that, we only know for sure that he stalked, repeatedly raped and tried to strangle a young Carlow businesswoman and is strongly suspected of being responsible for similar disappearances. He has never even been suspected of killing a prostitute.

sambuka41 wrote: »

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)

I know from personal experience that it is crap and scummy - but not in anything like the same terms DCG describes.

(I once has a client who killed the woman he loved within 24 hours...he was obviously deeply distressed, and trying to be brave about it in a way that haunted me...but he was not even slightly a "really scummy experience.)

sambuka41 wrote: »

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.

Prostitution is not usually considered a father/son bonding experience.

sambuka41 wrote: »

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.

That just is not true, there are FAR more "nice Johns" than scumbags, who are quite rare...but we tend to remember the bad and forget to mention the good...as Shakespeare said:

"The evil that men do lives on, the good is oft interred with their bones"

Most clients are nice, genuine and very harmless guys. What makes prostitution unpleasant is having sex you do not desire sex with men you do not desire, while dodging the Gardai, RTE Primetime Teams and forcible, inaccurate and in appropriate redefinition by well heeled NGOs...as well as the terrible stigma imposed upon your life by other people.

sambuka41 wrote: »

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.

Why don't *YOU* start a thread specifically about those very things? That is a valid discussion, but this thread is about people's honest reactions to DCG's blog.

The_Thing · 26-02-2012 02:52PM

JaneOrange wrote: »

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.

The problem as far as I can see, JaneOrange, is that there has been anything but a full and open debate about the issue of prostitution in Ireland because of the stigma attached to it.

Ruhama and their supporters have capitalised on this stigma and have used it to their advantage. They go on air, make all sorts of claims and accusations about sex workers without knowing the people they speak of, they do this knowing full well that there will be little chance of their hurtful claims being refuted because the fear of being identified will prevent people from responding to them.

Last year for example I heard Geraldine Rowley say on Pat Kenny's radio show that Ruhama took the view that all sex workers were trafficked. What utter nonsense. And why is it that they only speak of women when there are men and transexuals selling sex too?

Ruhama are hell bent on forcing the Government to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to an issue that has many facets. They are fixated on the Nordic model, but will not listen to a Swede like Pye Jacobsen.

When I had a look at Laura Agustin's Website I saw that she said many of those in the "Rescue Industry" were not without self-interest and I believe that this is the case with Ruhama and their opposition to the sex industry as they were founded by the Catholic Church.

The video below is an address given to the House of Commons by Fr. David Gilmour. In it he makes the point that the sex workers in his parish are being used as pawns in a game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YkV29ssxgM

sambuka41 · 26-02-2012 03:04PM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

But he also admitted that he chose prostitutes because he knew nobody cared enough about what happened to them to stop him...

...and he was certainly right about the "not caring enough" part as all these people constantly prove by not caring what will happen to prostitutes and their families if the legislate to take their income away.

There was quite a substantial task force on the green river case that ran for many years before they were re deployed, so not caring is disingenuous and I think it says more about his attitude than the polices.

It is for the very reason that people DO care that they don't want to see women ever in a position to have to sell themselves to get by. That they would have to risk rape, violence and death just to earn some money, how they hell is that ok? No society should let their women become so desparate as to do that (assuming that finance is purely the reason, but nothing in life is that straight forward and I think DCG explains the complexities well)

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Unless their obsession specifically targets prostitutes (like Jack the Ripper or the Yorkshire Ripper) they are unlikely to begin with prostitutes at all and far more likely to end with them...like the M4 Rapist John Steed. There has been research that suggest the reason for this is that prostitutes are more accessible than other women and less likely to put up resistance.

They may well be the specified target or it may be a case of ease of access. There is no way to know the motive for Jack's murders, it could have been either target or for convenience. Gary Ridgeway also said that he killed them because he didn't want to pay for the sex.

There are stats to show that prostitutes are 60-100 times more likely to be murdered compared with non prostitute women, and that sexual homicide is most often committed by men against women unknown to him.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

We don't actually know that, we only know for sure that he stalked, repeatedly raped and tried to strangle a young Carlow businesswoman and is strongly suspected of being responsible for similar disappearances. He has never even been suspected of killing a prostitute.

I didn't say he's killed a prostitute just that he uses prostitutes. He admitted this himself last year when he claims a prostitute stole his passport.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Prostitution is not usually considered a father/son bonding experience.

While I was speaking about Gary's experience I did not mean that all fathers bring their sons to prostitutes but if they have a low opinion of women, sex, relationships, family......this will all be communicated to his children in one form or another.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

That just is not true, there are FAR more "nice Johns" than scumbags, who are quite rare...but we tend to remember the bad and forget to mention the good...as Shakespeare said:

"The evil that men do lives on, the good is oft interred with their bones"

Most clients are nice, genuine and very harmless guys. What makes prostitution unpleasant is having sex you do not desire sex with men you do not desire,

Here is where we disagree because I don't think any NICE guy would have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with them. I don't think their attitudes,behaviour towards themselves or women are harmless, not at all.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Why don't *YOU* start a thread specifically about those very things? That is a valid discussion, but this thread is about people's honest reactions to DCG's blog.

These elements that I mentioned are all in her blog but we are not being given the opportunity to discuss them as more and more posters are here arguing about whether her blog is genuine.

The_Thing · 26-02-2012 03:12PM

Sambuka41, I read this a few years ago and found it very interesting - The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer

sambuka41 · 26-02-2012 03:22PM

The_Thing wrote: »

Sambuka41, I read this a few years ago and found it very interesting - The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer

I've been meaning to get a copy of it for a while now. The first thing I read about Ridgeway was Ann Rule's book, very well written. (her book about Bundy is even better, given that she knew him makes for some eerie reading)

Eileen_Lang · 26-02-2012 03:57PM

sambuka41 wrote: »

It is for the very reason that people DO care that they don't want to see women ever in a position to have to sell themselves to get by. That they would have to risk rape, violence and death just to earn some money, how they hell is that ok? No society should let their women become so desparate as to do that.

If that was the point of the "Turn of the Red Light" campaign they would be focussed solely on campaigning against poverty and desperation, not for legislation to reduce women who have fought to raise themselves out of poverty into destitution, thereby CREATING and exacerbating poverty rather than reducing it.

If that was the point of "Turn Off the Red Light" they would not be paying themselves extremely generous salaries to lobby and administer a lobby against not only the best interests but also the expressed wishes of sex workers...they would be giving that money, DIRECTLY, to women who want to exit prostitution instead.

sambuka41 wrote: »

They may well be the specified target or it may be a case of ease of access. There is no way to know the motive for Jack's murders, it could have been either target or for convenience. Gary Ridgeway also said that he killed them because he didn't want to pay for the sex.

Jack the Ripper, Gary Ridgeway, the Yorkshire Ripper and several others exclusively targeted prostitutes, so that it is reasonable to assume that was part of their specific pathology.

Many serial killers specifically target women who are not prostitutes and can digress into targeting prostitutes later as the net closes in and victims become harder to access or put up more resistance...there are hardly any cases of serial killers who began with prostitutes and moved on to other women...

There was, however, a female serial killer who exclusively targetted clients:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos

(Incidentally, only 3 working prostitutes - Dolores Lynch was killed by a pimp in the early 80s but only after she had given evidence against him, and left prostitution for some time - have been killed in Ireland since 1920...two of them since the 1993 sexual offences act recriminalised prostitution).

sambuka41 wrote: »

I didn't say he's killed a prostitute just that he uses prostitutes. He admitted this himself last year when he claims a prostitute stole his passport.

Actually, I think it was the Evening Herald that claimed that, the upside is that, if it is true:

He didn't kill *her*
He will probably think twice before hiring a sex worker again

Also, try to remember that, whatever I or anyone may privately think, Larry Murphy has never been proved to be a killer at all, let alone a serial killer, and, on the whole, I suspect boards would prefer you refer to him as one?

sambuka41 wrote: »

While I was speaking about Gary's experience I did not mean that all fathers bring their sons to prostitutes but if they have a low opinion of women, sex, relationships, family......this will all be communicated to his children in one form or another.

If men have a low or abusive opinion of women, that is nothing to do with prostitution and legislation against prostitution will do nothing to change that, except to place prostitutes at hugely greater risk from them.

sambuka41 wrote: »

Here is where we disagree because I don't think any NICE guy would have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with them. I don't think their attitudes,behaviour towards themselves or women are harmless, not at all.

...but then you have never been a prostitute and never met an identified client (though you have probably met many without realising) so I probably know more than you do.

Ickle Magoo · 26-02-2012 04:28PM

Eileen_Lang - one does not need to have personal experience to make a contribution here - nor to be right, for that matter.

I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by posting just on this topic and dominating the discussion here, inferring you know more than other contributors or that only you are right - but I'd hazard a guess it's doing precisely the opposite to that which you intend.

Having a topic of interest and taking an active part in discussion on that is one thing, doing so in such a way that it is to the detriment of the discussion and forum in general is another matter - this is a discussion forum for the Boards community, please allow that community to discuss.

Many thanks.

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

sambuka41 · 26-02-2012 04:37PM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

If that was the point of the "Turn of the Red Light" campaign they would be focussed solely on campaigning against poverty and desperation, not for legislation to reduce women who have fought to raise themselves out of poverty into destitution, thereby CREATING and exacerbating poverty rather than reducing it.

If that was the point of "Turn Off the Red Light" they would not be paying themselves extremely generous salaries to lobby and administer a lobby against not only the best interests but also the expressed wishes of sex workers...they would be giving that money, DIRECTLY, to women who want to exit prostitution instead.

I have no interest in any organisation for or against legalisation of prostitution. You said that people don't care, I said that I do care, and would rather not see women have to enter into prostitution for reasons of finance.

Discussing legislation is your agenda, its not even a huge part of the DCG blog.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Jack the Ripper, Gary Ridgeway, the Yorkshire Ripper and several others exclusively targeted prostitutes, so that it is reasonable to assume that was part of their specific pathology.

No not necessarily, it may have just been because they weren't charming enough to kidnap/kill women who are not engaging in high risk behaviour. There have been serial killers who have had specific issues with female prostitutes and chose to target them sepcifically (for many reasons, see them as dirty ect.) others have killed prostitutes due to ease of access to them.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Actually, I think it was the Evening Herald that claimed that, the upside is that, if it is true:
He didn't kill *her*

He will probably think twice before hiring a sex worker again

Well I am not in a position to check with the Spanish police to see if he did report the crime, so we'll say that according to the Herald Larry Murphy accused a prostitute of stealing his passport. For a man who is a convicted rapist I don't hold out much hope of his rehabilitation given that he is using prostitutes, he doesn't seem to want to be integrating back into society very well. Also given the extremely high rates of recidivism of this type of sexual offender, I would not like to be the prostitute whose services he wants to engage.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Also, try to remember that, whatever I or anyone may privately think, Larry Murphy has never been proved to be a killer at all, let alone a serial killer, and, on the whole, I suspect boards would prefer you refer to him as one?

I have never said he was a murderer or a serial murderer, I cleared that up in my last response. All I have accused him of his being a scummy rapist, and that he is. Also that he is A type of man who uses prostitutes, you say there aren't that many and I say even 1 is 1 too many. For that reason I can see why DCG speaks the way she does.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

If men have a low or abusive opinion of women, that is nothing to do with prostitution and legislation against prostitution will do nothing to change that, except to place prostitutes at hugely greater risk from them.

There you go mentioning legislation again. I haven't mentioned it once in any of my posts, its not a concern for me. If men have a low opinion of women they will be more able/ capable of dehumanising them in the way that paying for sex does. So they will be more likely to use a prostitute.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

...but then you have never been a prostitute and never met an identified client (though you have probably met many without realising) so I probably know more than you do.

Granted I am not a prostitute and never have been but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter, I have certain opinions on what makes a nice guy and paying for sex is not part of it. I am entitled to that opnion.

Not to be harsh or rude but do you not think your experiences may have warped/ altered your idea of men? (not saying my view is the right one, but each of us is coming at this discussion from very different life experiences, I can see how DCG needed not to hate the men to get by but her anger towards them now seems to be part of a healing process. You don't seem to have any anger or resentment, in fact you are defending them alot)

Eileen_Lang · 26-02-2012 08:50PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eileen_Lang - one does not need to have personal experience to make a contribution here - nor to be right, for that matter.

Sorry Ickle Magoo...I feel I really ought to clarify that, because it was just about one specific that I implied that. Maybe I put it badly, but what I meant was that, because it's not something people come out and talk about, you pretty much have to be a prostitute to know the kind of men that buy sex and it is not anything like you would expect...

Some of them are really attractive and have everything...AND are nice...some of them I will never, in a million years figure out what they were buying sex for...

I can't tell you what one of the warmest, nicest clients I ever had did for a living because it was so unusual I might as well give you his name, address and telephone number, but it literally shocked my socks of...

Then there are oither unexpected things like clients who are olympic class *ssholes (the kind you assume never behave with anyone)...then you run into them socially and they could not *BE* more courteous and respectful.

Or they clients who kept giving me money to take to a woman who was hiding from a dangerous husband...they knew she would never be back, they just *CARED*...

The only rule is that there are no rules...

I do not see how anyone can realise that if they haven't seen it.

fatmammycat · 26-02-2012 09:07PM

Aw, clients are so adorable(!!) caring so much while they screw disenfranchised women behind the back of their wives and children. Oooh, that just gives me the warm and fuzzies, I was so wrong about them etc... Thanks be to god they have you here Eileen to defend them, the poor dears.

Eileen_Lang · 26-02-2012 09:12PM

sambuka41 wrote: »

I have no interest in any organisation for or against legalisation of prostitution. You said that people don't care, I said that I do care, and would rather not see women have to enter into prostitution for reasons of finance.

Me too, which is why I think the emphasis should ALWAYS be on campaigning to prevent the things that drive people into prostitution, not laws to cut off the income they need and make there lives even harder.

sambuka41 wrote: »

Discussing legislation is your agenda, its not even a huge part of the DCG blog.

Criminalisation of clients is only the entire focus of the blog, and the other blogs it is affiliated with.

sambuka41 wrote: »

No not necessarily, it may have just been because they weren't charming enough to kidnap/kill women who are not engaging in high risk behaviour.

Isn't that veering towards trying to suggest that those women only got killed because they were "asking for it"? Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler and whoever our national serial killer is did not target women "engaged in high risk behavior" at all.

sambuka41 wrote: »

I don't hold out much hope of his rehabilitation given that he is using prostitutes, he doesn't seem to want to be integrating back into society very well.

Don't you think it is more likely that society is refusing to integrate well with him?

sambuka41 wrote: »

There you go mentioning legislation again. I haven't mentioned it once in any of my posts, its not a concern for me. If men have a low opinion of women they will be more able/ capable of dehumanising them in the way that paying for sex does. So they will be more likely to use a prostitute.

In my experience the polar opposite is true...the majority of clients prefer to pay someone for casual sex rather than use someone for it out of respect.

sambuka41 wrote: »

Not to be harsh or rude but do you not think your experiences may have warped/ altered your idea of men? (not saying my view is the right one, but each of us is coming at this discussion from very different life experiences, I can see how DCG needed not to hate the men to get by but her anger towards them now seems to be part of a healing process. You don't seem to have any anger or resentment, in fact you are defending them alot)

My clients were often some of the nicest men I have known...they gave me literally no reason to hate them or be angry with them.

I needed to sell sex to survive, that was not their fault of their choice, they bought that sex, if they hadn't I could not have survived, what is to resent?

I save my hate and anger for the people forced me into that position, left me trapped there with no way to escape and make a hobby or a living out of making that even worse for people like me...the REAL offenders here...

The clients I dreaded were the ones who became fond of me in ways I could not reciprocate....that killed me...I hate hurting people.

sambuka41 · 26-02-2012 09:42PM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Criminalisation of clients is only the entire focus of the blog, and the other blogs it is affiliated with.

In a larger context the blogs may well serve that purpose but I am reading them as one woman's experience with prostitution. She says herself that it's not a place for discussion, its for her to have a voice; something I wouldn't like to see anyone take away.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Isn't that veering towards trying to suggest that those women only got killed because they were "asking for it"? Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler and whoever our national serial killer is did not target women "engaged in high risk behavior" at all.

This is a poor attempt to try an twist what I have said. It is in no way veering towards saying that they were asking for it, that is a huge jump in your mind. I have given the stats that say a woman engaging in prostitution is 60-100 times more likely to be murdered, they are the figures, it is dangerous and risky. engaging in high risk behaviour is investigative jargon, there is no judgement in it.
In fact I was the one who said that if a man wants to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with him, makes him a pretty ****ty man; so I have not placed the blame anywhere other then the johns, you on the other hand are blaming everyone BUT the johns.

We were not discussing Ted Bundy, he had a specific target, women who looked like his ex-fiancée, he also had the social skills so that he could target his exact victim choice. Some men don't so they target prostitutes instead. At no point did I say ALL serial killers go after prostitutes just that some do. Again this a risk that these women face. I don't see why you are going so far out of your way to appear like they dont? They risk violence, rape, stalking, harassment, disease, and death from these men.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

In my experience the polar opposite is true...the majority of clients prefer to pay someone for casual sex rather than use someone for it out of respect.

Again we will have to disagree, because it really has nothing to do with respect. If they cannot find a consenting partner then heaven forbid they go without sex. My opinion of men is that all these lenghts are not necessary because they are not all sex crazed monsters who have get sex even if it means they have to use and abuse to get it. :rolleyes:

Those men who feel that they are being decent by going to a prostitute instead of using a non prostitute girl, are childish, immature gits who haven't respect or understanding of what intimacy is.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

My clients were often some of the nicest men I have known...they gave me literally no reason to hate them or be angry with them.

I needed to sell sex to survive, that was not their fault of their choice, they bought that sex, if they hadn't I could not have survived, what is to resent?

I save my hate and anger for the people forced me into that position, left me trapped there with no way to escape and make a living out of making that even worse for people like me...the REAL offenders here...

The clients I dreaded were the ones who became fond of me in ways I could not reciprocate....that killed me...I hate hurting people.

Actually it was their fault, because if these men didn't buy sex women wouldn't have to sell it. As long as there is a demand then it will be filled, only in the meantime many women are being traumatised and worse.

I am really confused by your responses to be honest, either you are a pimp trying to derail any good work done by DCG or you are still very seriously troubled by the life you have had to live. You are identifying strongly with these men, either as a defence mechanism or you are one of them

(I'm not trying to be offensive)

Eileen_Lang · 26-02-2012 10:14PM

sambuka41 wrote: »

This is a poor attempt to try an twist what I have said. It is in no way veering towards saying that they were asking for it, that is a huge jump in your mind. I have given the stats that say a woman engaging in prostitution is 60-100 times more likely to be murdered, they are the figures, it is dangerous and risky. engaging in high risk behaviour is investigative jargon, there is no judgement in it.

What you said was actually this:

sambuka41 wrote:

No not necessarily, it may have just been because they weren't charming enough to kidnap/kill women who are not engaging in high risk behaviour.

To me that veers uncomfortably towards suggesting that people get murdered because they are "asking for it" in a far more generic way.

sambuka41 wrote: »

In fact I was the one who said that if a man wants to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with him, makes him a pretty ****ty man; so I have not placed the blame anywhere other then the johns, you on the other hand are blaming everyone BUT the johns.

Not "everyone" just the people who actually *were* to blame. My clients had nothing to do with, no control over and no responsibility for the circumstances that forced me into prostitution, and they had no realistic way to get me out of it...so what is to blame them for?

I did not desire them sexually, but I wanted to sell sex to them, for the most compelling reason of all...because I wanted to be able to survive...how is that their fault?

How could they possibly be, in any way, to blame for that.

If they had refused to buy from me I would have had no way to survive...I am not kidding, I had literally no alternative...

And when you are selling sex and expecting people to buy it is only common courtesy not to rub the client's nose in how much you hate it. I NEVER told them that unless they came right out and asked. So how were they supposed to know?

sambuka41 wrote: »

Again we will have to disagree, because it really has nothing to do with respect.

Well they seem to feel quite sure it is about respect and I feel quite sure it is about respect too.

sambuka41 wrote: »

If they cannot find a consenting partner then heaven forbid they go without sex.

Why should they if there are people willing, and consenting to sell sex to them for a living?

sambuka41 wrote: »

My opinion of men is that all these lenghts are not necessary because they are not all sex crazed monsters who have get sex even if it means they have to use and abuse to get it. :rolleyes:

I was *NEVER* used or abused by my clients except for a handful of exception in 6 years who "used and abused" me in ways that were actually unrelated to the sex they were buying from me.

sambuka41 wrote: »

Actually it was their fault, because if these men didn't buy sex women wouldn't have to sell it.

THat is ridiculous, women do not sell sex because men want to buy it, they sell it because they need the money, often because *they cannot get it anywhere else that is not far worse* and if men did not buy sex they would *STILL* need the money desperately and be unable to get it anywhere else. For some of those women, like me, that would be, literally, *game over*. Is that what you see as in their best interests?

sambuka41 wrote: »

As long as there is a demand then it will be filled, only in the meantime many women are being traumatised and worse.

Do you not realise that women are traumatised by the things that drive them to prostitution out of necessity?

Do you not realise that prostitution is not a problem for most women, it is, however desperate and drastic, a solution to one or more problems, and that taking that solution away from them will be even more damaging, dangerous and traumatic?

That is even simple math.

sambuka41 · 27-02-2012 12:02AM

I am going to bow out now because Eileen you have been in this industry for too long. Your ideas of respect and what makes a good man is so different to my own there is no point continuing the discussion.

I think DCG blog is fascinating reading and I will keep an eye on it, cause it is important for Ireland to take a look at our attitudes towards sex and towards the abuse that we suffered and continue to afflict on the next generation. Its all communicated whether we mean for it to be or not.

Dolbert · 27-02-2012 12:56AM

I guess that I just can't accept that prostitution should ever be someone's *only* option, at least in this country. The argument that some illegal immigrants would need to sell sex as they cannot receive social welfare all but justifies the trafficking of more women for sex.

Socially, it seems that we are more likely to pin blame on the prostitutes than the 'clients' - as demonstrated recently by a Limerick newspaper who nobly took a stand and refused to name the men caught availing of the services in a local brothel. Funnily enough, they didn't have any problem naming and shaming the prostitutes a few issues before.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 01:36AM

Dolorous wrote: »

I guess that I just can't accept that prostitution should ever be someone's *only* option, at least in this country.

But surely Dolorous, that is actually very simple...whether we can fix it or not (and I do not think we can in every case, particularly in recession), any *blame* should rest fairly and squarely on those responsible for any situation where a woman is left with no option but sell sex?

All these situations tend not to be of the type where nobody could be expected to realise how desperate someone would be...they tend more to be of the type where half an ounce of common sense would tell plenty of people that they were pushing somebody's life into an impossible position, but they chose to deny it, pretend it couldn't possibly happen and that "they" would take care of it without asking themselves who "they" might be...

strandroad · 27-02-2012 01:54AM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

But surely Dolorous, that is actually very simple...whether we can fix it or not (and I do not think we can in every case, particularly in recession), any *blame* should rest fairly and squarely on those responsible for any situation where a woman is left with no option but sell sex?

All these situations tend not to be of the type where nobody could be expected to realise how desperate someone would be...they tend more to be of the type where half an ounce of common sense would tell plenty of people that they were pushing somebody's life into an impossible position, but they chose to deny it, pretend it couldn't possibly happen and that "they" would take care of it without asking themselves who "they" might be...

I agree with Dolorous & others in that I find your argumentation quite bizarre. Surely the people who are desperate and broken, such as your example of a 18yo kicked out of her family home, are precisely the people who should be kept away from prostitution at any cost. Simply because they would be in it for all the wrong reasons, desperate, depressed, addicted, broken - and in their case the risk of this experience harming them and doing an irreparable damage is at its highest.

For the record, I do not have any issues with the notion of adult women who make an informed choice to sell sex, preferring it to a retail job, office job or whatever job they find pointless. Legalities are a different matter (as it seems you can never get it right) but still.

However, it's not "elective sex workers" whom you defend. You want to keep prostitution legal for the sake of all those desperate potential victims entering it for all the wrong reasons. If you have time and experience to campaign, why don't you campaign for the recognition of such high risk cases within the welfare system, if you claim it's not happening? Instead, you choose to run a "I will fight for your right to destroy yourself" campaign. Bizarre!

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 02:34AM

mhge wrote: »

I agree with Dolorous & others in that I find your argumentation quite bizarre. Surely the people who are desperate and broken, such as your example of a 18yo kicked out of her family home, are precisely the people who should be kept away from prostitution at any cost. Simply because they would be in it for all the wrong reasons, desperate, depressed, addicted, broken - and in their case the risk of this experience harming them and doing an irreparable damage is at its highest.

But you are missing *THE* most vital step in the equation mhge...survival...more than anything else they need to be able to survive, so unless you can guarantee to provide them with the means of survival in their specific circumstances (unlikely in the current economic climate) it is very much against their best interests to take the only alternative they have away...

...unless you are trying to suggest they would be better off dead than selling sex?

mhge wrote: »

For the record, I do not have any issues with the notion of adult women who make an informed choice to sell sex, preferring it to a retail job, office job or whatever job they find pointless. Legalities are a different matter (as it seems you can never get it right) but still.

However, it's not "elective sex workers" whom you defend. You want to keep prostitution legal for the sake of all those desperate potential victims entering it for all the wrong reasons. If you have time and experience to campaign, why don't you campaign for the recognition of such high risk cases within the welfare system, if you claim it's not happening? Instead, you choose to run a "I will fight for your right to destroy yourself" campaign. Bizarre!

They are not trying to destroy themselves, they are trying to survive as best they can, with the only resource available to them.

I constantly campaign for recognition of high risk cases and resources within the system...which is why I know that there is no money available. Cutbacks will actually increase the "high risk cases".

But even when there *was* money available getting it allocated to the people who really needed it has always been like threading a camel through the eye of a needle. Almost all the available resources vanish through NGOs into a black hole called "Adminstration Costs" and never go NEAR the people who need them.

Meanwhile, those "high risk cases" still have a right to survive any way they can without those better off than themselves making things even harder than they need to be...

strandroad · 27-02-2012 02:55AM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

But you are missing *THE* most vital step in the equation mhge...survival...more than anything else they need to be able to survive, so unless you can guarantee to provide them with the means of survival in their specific circumstances (unlikely in the current economic climate) it is very much against their best interests to take the only alternative they have away...

...unless you are trying to suggest they would be better off dead than selling sex?

They are not trying to destroy themselves, they are trying to survive as best they can, with the only resource available to them.

The fact that you survived doesn't automatically mean that others will. This is the element you are missing. And "survival" of the desperate, even if it happens, will involve a lot of damage.

I understand various arguments in favour of legalised prostitution. This is about the weakest and most convoluted I've ever heard...

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

I constantly campaign for recognition of high risk cases and resources within the system...which is why I know that there is no money available. Cutbacks will actually increase the "high risk cases".

But even when there *was* money available getting it allocated to the people who really needed it has always been like threading a camel through the eye of a needle. Almost all the available resources vanish through NGOs into a black hole called "Adminstration Costs" and never go NEAR the people who need them.

Meanwhile, those "high risk cases" still have a right to survive any way they can without those better off than themselves making things even harder than they need to be...

Look I happen to know the system reasonably well. I do not see realistic scenarios of people forced to choose between selling sex and death in today's Ireland, recession included.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 03:05AM

mhge wrote: »

The fact that you survived doesn't automatically mean that others will. This is the element you are missing.

No, the fact that so many other people survived too (many in far better shape than me) means that others will, though less if you bring in laws to make things even harder. :mad:

mhge wrote: »

And "survival" of the desperate, even if it happens, will involve a lot of damage.

Look at that, you *are* really saying they would be better off dead than selling sex as far as I can see, at any rate that is the fate you would consign them to give the choice...maybe you even have a point, but if so, that is a decision they should be left make for themselves. (Incidentally there is absolutely no proof that prostitution damages everyone, or even most people.)

mhge wrote: »

I understand various arguments in favour of legalised prostitution. This is about the weakest and most convoluted I've ever heard...

Look I happen to know the system reasonably well. I do not see realistic scenarios of people forced to choose between selling sex and death in today's Ireland, recession included.

Then you just do not know the system well enough...and we are talking about an unspecified proportion of less than 0.1% of population here...not 200,000 people. (Edited to add) That might have decreased significantly if people ever stopped telling themselves it could never really happen and faced and *DEALT* with it instead.

strandroad · 27-02-2012 03:23AM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Look at that, you *are* really saying they would be better off dead than selling sex as far as I can see, at any rate that is the fate you would consign them to give the choice...

No I am not saying that at all, please do not put words in my mouth. I fail to see how it's between prostitution and death in Ireland 2012.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

maybe you even have a point, but if so, that is a decision they should be left make for themselves. (Incidentally there is absolutely no proof that prostitution damages everyone, or even most people.)

Incidentally I am not arguing that. We are discussing a specific subset of very vulnerable people forced into prostitution out of extreme desperation and (apparently, as you say) fear of death; so yes, I believe it may be the case that a large number, perhaps most, would indeed suffer trauma and damage, not to mention external risks (health, violence) associated with this profession and exacerbated by their desperation.
Similarly to the situation when a woman who makes an informed choice between continuing or terminating a pregnancy is in a different psychological situation to a woman on whom one or the other is forced.

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Then you just do not know the system well enough...and we are talking about an unspecified proportion of less than 0.1% of population here...not 200,000 people. (Edited to add) That might have decreased significantly if people ever stopped telling themselves it could never really happen and faced and *DEALT* with it instead.

Promoting prostitution as viable option for the desperate is not dealing with it at all...

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 03:44AM

mhge wrote: »

No I am not saying that at all, please do not put words in my mouth. I fail to see how it's between prostitution and death in Ireland 2012.

Well just because you do not see it does not mean that it does not happen that way. Then there is more indirect failure to survive, an irreversible downward spiral into homelessness, hopelessness and alienation, funded by crime or begging, rendered barely tolerable by substance abuse.

Prostitution makes at least a half normal life possible. A safe, warm home, a bath, clean clothes...at least limited access to constructive furture options

mhge wrote: »

Incidentally I am not arguing that. We are discussing a specific subset of very vulnerable people forced into prostitution out of extreme desperation and (apparently, as you say) fear of death; so yes, I believe it may be the case that a large number, perhaps most, would indeed suffer trauma and damage, not to mention external risks (health, violence) associated with this profession and exacerbated by their desperation.

Well, in my experience you would often be wrong, I was badly damaged (because of pre-existing factors) but most people seem to come through prostitution remarkably unscathed...though, of course, it is not a magic bullet for any pre-existing trauma.

Long term destitution and homelessness, however are a near guarantee of trauma, damage, mental illness and constant external risks concerned with heath, violence and even cold weather. I have *never* seen one single person come through mid to long term homelessness unscathed.

mhge wrote: »

Similarly to the situation when a woman who makes an informed choice between continuing or terminating a pregnancy is in a different psychological situation to a woman on whom one or the other is forced.

By the time you have to make that choice you are ALREADY unable to escape desperate circumstances that are almost certain to cause you significant harm whatever you choose...the best thing for you is to choose the option that will do you least harm, and/or offer you the best chance of recovery and a future.

Not surviving is unlikely to be that.

mhge wrote: »

Promoting prostitution as viable option for the desperate is not dealing with it at all...

It's far closer to dealing with it than the default which is to avert the eyes and pretend it in impossible to be that desperate.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 07:40AM

Yet another footnote on the night. An escort member of a sex industry forum I feel it inappropriate to specify has confirmed that Dublin Call Girl used to advertise there and made this comment (I would rather not transcribe or interpret it, for fear of changing meaning):

"I think her experiences on message boards wasnt an entirely pleasant one either. Perhaps this is her way of finally speaking to her tormentors there."

If that means she is lashing back at a community in which she was unpopular and/or bullied *that* would stack up for me in a way I can relate to and sympathise with - on an individual level - but certainly not as a valid basis for defining the sex industry as a whole, much less for framing legislation.

fatmammycat · 27-02-2012 10:58AM

Hold on a second there, earlier on in this discussion you claimed DCG wasn't genuine at all, and that you 'knew' this to be so. Now you're suggesting she is, but she's lashing out? Which is it Eileen? You know the longer you go on as an apologist for the business the longer I think you're a ringer; a McCormick stooge.

strandroad · 27-02-2012 11:57AM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

Well just because you do not see it does not mean that it does not happen that way. Then there is more indirect failure to survive, an irreversible downward spiral into homelessness, hopelessness and alienation, funded by crime or begging, rendered barely tolerable by substance abuse.

Prostitution makes at least a half normal life possible. A safe, warm home, a bath, clean clothes...at least limited access to constructive furture options

It's you who brought the choice between prostitution and imminent death into the debate, so please do not move the goalposts when I pull you up on this. I am aware of long term dangers of poverty and substance abuse; but I fail to see how it can be advisable to a drug addict who is so far gone as to be incapable of seeking help or engaging with services to go out and prostitute herself, seeing as her addiction will make her far less vigilant and far more likely to accept risky clients and risky requests.

Well, in my experience you would often be wrong, I was badly damaged (because of pre-existing factors) but most people seem to come through prostitution remarkably unscathed...though, of course, it is not a magic bullet for any pre-existing trauma.

The "I survived and so will they" argument again; and if they are traumatised it's their fault for coming in with issues. I would have thought that abused 18 year olds, drug addicts etc are fairly likely to suffer from pre-existing trauma.

It's far closer to dealing with it than the default which is to avert the eyes and pretend it in impossible to be that desperate.

Who said that, surely not me?
Your way of "dealing" with the problem of an abused 18yo is to tell her that johns are nice and pimps are honest. I respect your voice, but I think due to your experience you are far too aligned with pimps and johns to be capable of dispensing safe advice to potential newcomers; especially as you concern yourself with the ones that are already vulnerable or traumatised.

neuro-praxis · 27-02-2012 12:40PM

Eileen_Lang, I have read the last few pages of this thread trying to get in your head and see everything from your position as clearly as I can. I now think I understand your position in this argument quite well, compared to at the start where I was utterly bewildered by you.

Maybe I could sum up your position in a few lines:

Prostitution, while not enjoyable, is ultimately a "good" that allows those who are destitute to live economically comfortable lives. The financial benefits of prostitution far outweigh any damage caused to the individual involved: far more damaging would be financial ruin. The punters are generally respectful of women, kind and harmless, therefore making the experience more bearable, and more importantly, they are the source of financial support, and should therefore not be challenged in any way, by anyone.

That you hold this position leads me to a couple of conclusions.

You are either still in the business personally, or you are a pimp or madam
You are very hurt and damaged by your experience in the past and therefore feel a strong compulsion to justify it, sanitise it and make it appear respectable
You are very ashamed of your involvement in prostitution but want to keep earning the money from it - it is something familiar that you know you can do. Therefore you anonymously campaign to keep it alive, perhaps out of love for your child?

You have not shown compassion or empathy here for any actual avowed survivors; only ones you claim to know personally that cannot be verified, many of whom have links to spurious organisations.

I just can't trust you - based on the version of yourself that you have presented.

If you are a woman in desperate financial circumstances, perhaps there would be a way for the boards community to help you. I would be willing to help. Please don't reply that the best way I can help is to "not take away your only means of survival". If I wanted to get rid of prostitution I wouldn't even know where to start. Your campaign doesn't even seem to be fighting a real threat. Prostitution will never go away.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 01:43PM

mhge wrote: »

Your way of "dealing" with the problem of an abused 18yo is to tell her that johns are nice and pimps are honest.

No it certainly is not and I have made that clear.

mhge wrote: »

I respect your voice, but I think due to your experience you are far too aligned with pimps and johns to be capable of dispensing safe advice to potential newcomers; especially as you concern yourself with the ones that are already vulnerable or traumatised.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of everything I have said and not even worthy of discussion.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 02:07PM

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Eileen_Lang, I have read the last few pages of this thread trying to get in your head and see everything from your position as clearly as I can. I now think I understand your position in this argument quite well, compared to at the start where I was utterly bewildered by you.

Maybe I could sum up your position in a few lines:

Prostitution, while not enjoyable, is ultimately a "good" that allows those who are destitute to live economically comfortable lives. The financial benefits of prostitution far outweigh any damage caused to the individual involved: far more damaging would be financial ruin. The punters are generally respectful of women, kind and harmless, therefore making the experience more bearable, and more importantly, they are the source of financial support, and should therefore not be challenged in any way, by anyone.

Can I do the obvious thing and edit that until it actually sums up my position rather than distorting it in any way?

Prostitution, however the individual feels about it, is, in many cases, on balance, a solution that can allow those who would otherwise be destitute to live materially tolerable lives. In such cases the financial benefits of prostitution far outweigh any damage caused to the individual involved. The clients are just ordinary people seeking a service for whatever reason, and there is no justification for making blind attacks on them for that.

Perhaps it would be fairer to offer you the opportunity to reframe your conclusions in the light of that?

Particularly as they are so very wide of the mark.

I will however state that:

I have not been involved in prostitution or anything relating to it, in any way for many years, and have never been a pimp or a madam as I loathe both.
I have been hurt and damaged by many experience in the past, but never by any sense of them not being "respectable" (whatever that is supposed to mean) much less driven to sanitise them
I have never been ashamed of my involvement in prostitution at all and have always felt it was those drove me to that position, those who left me trapped there, and those who strove diligently to make that position as hard as possible for me who had cause to be ashamed, not me. My "child" may well have been an independent adult for longer than you have. I am not prepared to discuss him in any contexrt beyond that out of respect for his privacy as well as my own.
I would never be daft enough to trust someone with your attitude to me to water my plants, let alone with my survival - were it in need of urgent attention.

You seem to be trying to play some kind of mental "cat and mouse game" with me, so I see no sense in further response to you.

neuro-praxis · 27-02-2012 02:14PM

Eileen_Lang wrote: »

I would never be daft enough to trust someone with your attitude to me to water my plants, let alone with my survival - were it in need of urgent attention.

Well, my offer of actually giving you money, mobilising a community of women to do likewise and highlighting access to resources that could enable you towards flourishing is pretty disgusting all right.

Eileen_Lang · 27-02-2012 02:49PM

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Well, my offer of actually giving you money, mobilising a community of women to do likewise and highlighting access to resources that could enable you towards flourishing is pretty disgusting all right.

Your offer is of no real worth to me, because your attitude and incomprehension is an insurmountable barrier to you ever having the slightest understanding of what I need to flourish, or what resources would be of real assistance, to me, and, unfortunately, the wrong help tends to do more harm than no help at all.

I would however, explore what you mean further, and at least thank you, if I were not convinced by your consistent hostility, that it is more of a ruse aimed at getting inside my head and persuading me to place my private identity at your mercy...oh yes, and the minor detail that I am not, at this time, in any desperate need.

Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl

Comments