Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Comment, The Times, 28/11/18  (Read 1461 times)

Offline MilleMiglia

"Criminalise punters to curb prostitution - 'high end' or not, vulnerable women are suffering and the men who fund their exploitation must face the consequences", says Alice Thomson.

She concludes with "Punters may persuade themselves that they are not taking advantage of another's plight, or they may not care. They may pretend to themselves that prostitution is just another lifestyle choice like any other but we can't allow this self serving fallacy to go unchallenged. The overwhelming majority of sex workers need help with drug addiction and debt problems, rather than the threat of a criminal conviction."

Funnily enough, the above claims were not referenced.

Online WARSZAWA16

Think she's making a pretty sweeping generalisation here about something she probably knows sweet FA about. One of these overbearing self-important people who just want to impose their opinions on anyone and everything on everyone.

Offline haggismccormick

Part of the deal when one gets married (male or female) is that other than by mutual consent one partner is available to meet the needs of the other whether it is cooking the lunch, bringing home the bacon or sex at any time.
When they make it illegal (or, at least, breach of contract) for one partner to refuse the other sex without due cause (i.e. not blackmail or vindictiveness etc.) then I might take these interfering bitches more seriously.
You know the old cliche. Marriage is the price men pay for sex. Sex is the price women pay for marriage.

Offline HarryZZ

Part of the deal when one gets married (male or female) is that other than by mutual consent one partner is available to meet the needs of the other whether it is cooking the lunch, bringing home the bacon or sex at any time.
When they make it illegal (or, at least, breach of contract) for one partner to refuse the other sex without due cause (i.e. not blackmail or vindictiveness etc.) then I might take these interfering bitches more seriously.
You know the old cliche. Marriage is the price men pay for sex. Sex is the price women pay for marriage.

Good God, is it still the 1930s?

Offline haggismccormick

No. It's the 21st century. End of 2018 to be precise.
Now you know the date would you kindly say which item (if any) you disagree with.

Offline Plan R

Good God, is it still the 1930s?

Haggis'  comment sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
When you get married you are giving one person control over your sex life forever more..
If the person you marry, decides that from now on, you are going to have decades of involuntary celibacy - then they are breaking the vow they made..

"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow"

Various versions of the vows  External Link/Members Only
most of which mention the body.. If you marry someone then you are the custodian of their sex life..

Offline Fuzzyduck

Think she's making a pretty sweeping generalisation here about something she probably knows sweet FA about. One of these overbearing self-important people who just want to impose their opinions on anyone and everything on everyone.

Well she comes from a family of very high achievers (several Nobel prize winners) so she possibly feels she needs to step up and say something righteous.

Offline Fuzzyduck

No. It's the 21st century. End of 2018 to be precise.
Now you know the date would you kindly say which item (if any) you disagree with.

Well I'm glad we have the time stamp clarified. Phew.
Still doesn't change that you have, IMO, an antiquated view of marriage. I'm not saying it's wrong, just not very modern. Also, you imply, and my apologies if I'm off the mark, that it's the wife's fault (for withholding sex) that men seek comfort with prostitutes in the first place. That may be one reason but, by no means, the only reason.

Offline Fuzzyduck

Haggis'  comment sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
When you get married you are giving one person control over your sex life forever more..
If the person you marry, decides that from now on, you are going to have decades of involuntary celibacy - then they are breaking the vow they made..

"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow"

Various versions of the vows  External Link/Members Only
most of which mention the body.. If you marry someone then you are the custodian of their sex life..

These are traditional, religious vows, that I guess many older, married guys will have used these when they got hitched. The majority of marriages today (around 3/4 I think) are civil and the vows don't include this view of marriage. We (collectively - not you and me PlanR!) could argue forever about the rights and wrong of it, and both sides would have good cases. However, for me, it doesn't justify putting the marriage "contract" at the heart of the argument around why men see hookers.

Offline unclepokey

Ms Thompson's letter to The Times today is, quite frankly, worthless.
She has no concept of the 'granularity' of the sex services market or the associated differences between street girls, agency girls, parlour girls or independents.  And whilst I acknowledge that the coerced  women may exist along the scale I mention, we know which end of which the one to another may exist in greater or lesser numbers.

The total failure of this woman to really understand what goes on renders her comment nugatory as to making a real contribution to what might actually help reduce slavery and all the rest of it. And it does nothing to persuade authorities to deploy resources to curb the slavery/coertion aspects of the trade concerned.
UP

Offline Gordon Bennett

Arent people also enslaved as au pairs, nannies, cleaners, building crews and stuff? Dont hear a clamour to outlaw babysitters or tarmac gangs though.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 06:01:54 pm by Gordon Bennett »

Autopunter

  • Guest
Arent people also enslaved as au pairs, nannies, cleaners, building crews and stuff? Dont hear a clamour to outlaw babysitters or tarmac gangs though.

Nail salons (at least in London) are frequently places women are trafficked too, where they are enslaved, and put to work so the business can launder the profits of cannabis farms owned by Vietnamese criminal gangs. Likewise, men are frequently trafficked into this country to work as indentured agricultural labourers (in 2017, men made up the majority of potential victims of modern slavery registered by UK law enforcement- 52 percent vs 47 percent for women, with the remainder being transgender- though as ever, this is an underestimate of the real number).

Middle class feminazis like this writer only want to talk about women trafficked for sex though, because (a) they can talk about evil men and their dirty, dirty penises, (b) its hard to demonise men over human trafficking if loads of men are also victims and (c) these right-on types are all from the same female-dominated metropolitan class that buys organic vegetables harvested from farms using slave labour, get their nails done from fancy salons using indentured women, or buy clothes with feminist slogan from shops using sweatshop labour etc etc. Indeed, women make the majority of spending decisions and control most household budgets in developed countries, which makes it deeply ironic that female feminists are mostly the ones lecturing us male punters about the risk of using the services of trafficked women (External Link/Members Only and External Link/Members Only). Sadly negative steryotyping against men is still a permissable form of soft bigotry in Western countries, so I don't expect this will change any time soon.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 07:30:00 pm by Autopunter »

Offline Fuzzyduck

Nail salons (at least in London) are frequently places women are trafficked too, where they are enslaved, and put to work so the business can launder the profits of cannabis farms owned by Vietnamese criminal gangs. Likewise, men are frequently trafficked into this country to work as indentured agricultural labourers (in 2017, men made up the majority of potential victims of modern slavery registered by UK law enforcement- 52 percent vs 47 percent for women, with the remainder being transgender- though as ever, this is an underestimate of the real number).

Middle class feminazis like this writer only want to talk about women trafficked for sex though, because (a) they can talk about evil men and their dirty, dirty penises, (b) its hard to demonise men over human trafficking if loads of men are also victims and (c) these right-on types are all from the same female-dominated metropolitan class that buys organic vegetables harvested from farms using slave labour, get their nails done from fancy salons using indentured women, or buy clothes with feminist slogan from shops using sweatshop labour etc etc. Indeed, women make the majority of spending decisions and control most household budgets in developed countries, which makes it deeply ironic that female feminists are mostly the ones lecturing us male punters about the risk of using the services of trafficked women (External Link/Members Only and External Link/Members Only). Sadly negative steryotyping against men is still a permissable form of soft bigotry in Western countries, so I don't expect this will change any time soon.

Great post. Sadly much of this doesn't get reported, since it doesn't support the flag waving-all-punters-are-rapists narrative. And it's sexist, of course.

Offline Home Alone

And in today's copy of The Times you can read - I've done it so you don't have to - a letter to the Editor from someone called James Mildred, a member of Christian Action Research & Education - I'll let you work out the acronym! - in which he writes

Quote
Not only does the evidence suggest that a sex-buying ban helps to reduce prostitution levels, it also helps to tackle one of the primary drivers of human trafficking. Sweden introduced a sex-buyers ban in 1999; according to police there the ban on purchasing sexual services deters human traffickers.

When I say that this is a classic tactic, I am not condoning human trafficking; merely deploring the implication that those of us who purchase sexual services in this country are directly associated with human traffickers, which I'm sure we would all deplore without producing any figures to justify the claim.

Offline unclepokey

+ more points than I can imagine.
UP

Offline Jayne_cobb

Surely legalising brothels would also reduce human trafficking as then the workers would all be registered and could be checked out by the authorities? I suppose that doesn’t play to the feminazi’s narrative  :unknown:

Most of the British wgs I’ve seen have been escorting to pay off debt (often to supplement a day job) making escorting illegal wont stop people getting in debt, it just removes one avenue for girls to pay it off quickly.

The police have all the powers they need to deal with traffickers, they just don’t have the resources to (I assume). Similarly there are social services and out-reach programs for the low end drug addicts. It would be better to ramp up those efforts than to just employ a blanket ban. A ban won’t address the causes that result in women getting into these conditions.

Offline Gordon Bennett

And in today's copy of The Times you can read - I've done it so you don't have to - a letter to the Editor from someone called James Mildred, a member of Christian Action Research & Education - I'll let you work out the acronym! - in which he writes

When I say that this is a classic tactic, I am not condoning human trafficking; merely deploring the implication that those of us who purchase sexual services in this country are directly associated with human traffickers, which I'm sure we would all deplore without producing any figures to justify the claim.

Men who take it upon themselves to take up the cudgels and fight for loony feminist causes really make me seethe. I always feel that deep down they are seedy dirty fuckers who are trying to finagle their way into the knickers of the damsels they are defending. Bit like how paedos drift into jobs working with kids. Let the ladies fight their own corner.

Offline Punterenas

Feminists have never had a problem using their "sisters" as cannon fodder in their sex war.
There is no evidence for any of her claims.
They just want to ban things they don't agree with and will walk away with no regard to the consequences for the women they claim to be protecting.
As for blokes who claim to be Feminists? They are a joke to both men and women.

Offline nodrah

Apologies for bringing this back to Brexit et al but I will wager that Alice Thomson is a huge advocate of the benefits and cultural enrichment that immigration has brought to the UK. It is well known that the majority of sex traffickers etc are of indigenous descent … yes, sarcasm … I will now await the cries of how racist I must be for daring to speak the truth.

Offline Horizontal pleasures

Ms Thompson's letter to The Times today is, quite frankly, worthless.
She has no concept of the 'granularity' of the sex services market or the associated differences between street girls, agency girls, parlour girls or independents.  And whilst I acknowledge that the coerced  women may exist along the scale I mention, we know which end of which the one to another may exist in greater or lesser numbers.

The total failure of this woman to really understand what goes on renders her comment nugatory as to making a real contribution to what might actually help reduce slavery and all the rest of it. And it does nothing to persuade authorities to deploy resources to curb the slavery/coertion aspects of the trade concerned.
UP
so who will volunteer to tell her the true story?

Offline unclepokey

If the said woman cares to read the comments on the Times Poll  page she will see the reasons why her article is flawed.

Uncle Pokey

Offline Baxter63

Well, in many towns and cities it will involve indigenous assent, nodrah. Does anybody really think the home-grown gangs in Glasgow, Edinburgh, NI, Liverpool, etc., are standing idly by and not getting their cut, for allowing the traffickers to operate? The local gangs will also be in control of the rental market flats that are used.

 
Banned reason: Anti UKP wanker Kelvin on another forum
Banned by: 90125

Autopunter

  • Guest
Well, in many towns and cities it will involve indigenous assent, nodrah. Does anybody really think the home-grown gangs in Glasgow, Edinburgh, NI, Liverpool, etc., are standing idly by and not getting their cut, for allowing the traffickers to operate? The local gangs will also be in control of the rental market flats that are used.

Britain is quite a well regulated country (by low global standards!), not to mention one of the most heavily spied upon in the world, which makes British criminals more accountable than say, Turkish ones; on the other hand lots of first and second generation immigrants (i.e. migrants and their kids) who get into the criminial lifestyle here also get arrested, though the cousin back home who sent them over here might not be. Assigning ultimate responsibility between local and foreign gangs operating here is always a bit of a mess frankly, becayse we lack a dominant criminal tradition like the Italian mafias, the post-Soviet countries' Vory v Zakone (thieves in law: External Link/Members Only) or the Japanese Yakuza.

The British police estimated in 2018 that there are 4,629 crime groups currently active in the UK, foreign or local, big and small, and they traffick both local British citizens and foreigners, across a whole range of different economic sectors. The UK has two heartlands for organised crime; London and the south-east, and my own lovely north-west (External Link/Members Only), with about 80-87% of organised criminals being British nationals. Sixty percent are white, around 73 per cent are British-born, the rest being made up of migrants who've taken on British citizenship. Basically it is a right old mess in OC, but you're right; it isn't just evil Albanian gangsters smuggling in their sisters to get gang raped by fat, sweaty, heavily breathing British punters. Lots of those Asian paedo trials recently involved trafficking, with British nationals on the perp and victim side, and with nobody doing anything about it for almost two decades in some cases, with nary a Sergei in sight.

Ironically, I used to favour shagging Brits on the assumption they were less likely to have been trafficked than an EE speaking no English (and to be fair, I still prefer seeing indie Brits as escorts for their English skills), which just goes to show why you should always do your own research. On the flipside, as this nice working lady explains, we should also be wary of taking anything the feminazis or the flith say at face value too frequently as well, as they both have axes to grind (the cops want their budgets topped up for one thing), and calling something trafficking can cover a range of meanings, not all of which involve kidnapping, sex slavery and death threats: External Link/Members Only

If you won't legalise it/decriminalise it (not quite the same things, and I favour the New Zealand model of legalisation over decriminalisation personally), I've always liked the Edinburgh model where small-fry local gangsters run the sauna scene (instead of some distant Russian mafia hood in St Petersburgh), and the police etc are always monitoring what's going on to catch any developing 'situations' as they happen. Keeps a good balance of power between the punters, the escorts and the gangs who run the premises, and any foreign gangsters whose ultimate masterminds are several continents away are kept at arms' length. It's a lot easier to catch a Mr Big if he lives in Liverpool or London frankly, even in this day and age. 

« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 10:18:55 am by Autopunter »