deconstructing 'paedophile gangs'
- Thread starter Ibn Khaldoun
- Start date
dylans
overlord of all acorns
No, you don't, instead you are content to throw the most outrageous smears and abuse and insults at people in a vain attempt to hide the bankruptcy of your arguments. You're pathetic.
I invite anyone to take a look back at this thread, Who has posted substantive posts including links to the voices of sex workers and who has thrown vile personal abuse?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
and I'd recommend they look at the other thread, the one where your behaviour led to you being banned. And where you ignored every bit of evidence contrary to your position.
I wouldn't recommend they spend long on it tho, unless they have a burning desire to make their eyes bleed
Oh dear.
I rest my case.
Why are you resting your case ? You posted previously that grooming kids on the internet didnt happen.Do you still think that ?
Ah a `bury the head in the sand cos im right` type.Got ya
I know sex trafficking exists i also know child grooming on the internet exists.If he says it doesnt then he`s talking out a region he should be sitting on !
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
having had pervy guys on the internet try to meet me constantly as a teenager, and some of them being quite clever about it, i can say that it does happen. i could tell pretty quickly who was legit and who wasn't, but someone who is less socially aware, more gullible, or whatever might not. as it was i almost once did get myself into what would potentially have been a very dangerous situation.
"child grooming' is a hysterical, media-friendly name, but the behaviour described is real.
"child grooming' is a hysterical, media-friendly name, but the behaviour described is real.
As you say, they can be very clever.But then youre putting an adult against a child so what chance does a child have ?They dont have the emotional maturity to know whats really happening.This is a bigger problem that people realize but, because it isnt in the news every day, many people think its not a problem.
kavenism
Progressive misanthrope
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the case of Belle de Jour in this absurd slinging match. The case does rather highlight the problematic status of the victim theory, and even many of the class dynamics that are often taken as granted in discussions on prostitution. These kinds of women have been objects of fascination for centuries, (Zola’s Nana for example) and yet in our modern discourse on prostitution the notion of the courtesan is rarely taken into account. Perhaps this reflects the power dynamics inherent in the discussion itself; that it always falls upon the downtrodden working class girl to play the victim or to reintegrate herself into accepted society through representation or struggle seems like a symptom (in the psychoanalytic sense) of an over-determination in the discourse.
These Belle de Jour characters, who no doubt are far fewer in number than the more socially recognisable image of prostitution are nonetheless the disavowed truth of the latter. Is it not far easier to generate monsters and gangs or a downtrodden class requiring emancipation than to accept the possibility of woman like Belle De Jour, who in their exceptional everydayness manage to integrate themselves within, academy, society and seem above suspicion in the moral witch hunt. Is this absence of the figure not indicative of the anxiety producing effect they have, the anxiety that no amount of intellect, upbringing, or class can surpass the temptation to treat ones body like a thing. In this climate we should not be surprised that this disavowed anxiety returns in the form of monsters out to steal our children.
No matter how liberated we think we are it is a truth eternal that sexuality will never fail to traumatise us.
These Belle de Jour characters, who no doubt are far fewer in number than the more socially recognisable image of prostitution are nonetheless the disavowed truth of the latter. Is it not far easier to generate monsters and gangs or a downtrodden class requiring emancipation than to accept the possibility of woman like Belle De Jour, who in their exceptional everydayness manage to integrate themselves within, academy, society and seem above suspicion in the moral witch hunt. Is this absence of the figure not indicative of the anxiety producing effect they have, the anxiety that no amount of intellect, upbringing, or class can surpass the temptation to treat ones body like a thing. In this climate we should not be surprised that this disavowed anxiety returns in the form of monsters out to steal our children.
No matter how liberated we think we are it is a truth eternal that sexuality will never fail to traumatise us.
Rod Sleeves
New Member
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Some kids (I know I did) do have the maturity so it's easy to say " they shouldnt be so gullible then". but a kid say with some social prboblems who has no friends and also lacks the ability to tell if someone is lying or not and cant tell if for e.g. people are making fun of them in real life let alone on the internet is going to be taken in by it.
Some men and women `like` being on the game, some men and women dont have a choice.Its those that dont have a choice that have people speaking up for them and why shouldnt they ?
I know kids that were forced into prostitution and it wasnt the `romantic` views you see on the tv.How can it be when kids as young as 9 months old are being passed around like toys ?
The thing is how can a child of , say, 11 years old, know he or she is being groomed ?I dont think theres many of them that can distinguish that.Youre right, theres so many reasons kids get taken in , and the abusers are very clever people and prey on that weakness.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
well, I wouldn't really accept your term 'moral witch hunt', but no matter. The reason BDJ types are not the focus of discussions around sex work is simply due to the facts that they are (as you say) only a minority of the people engaged in sex work, and because they work in an 'unproblematic' way - ie, their labour is given totally voluntarily, and there are much less likely to be problems with substance misuse etc.
The existence of BDJ types says something about how sex work needn't be wholly expoitative (well, not more than any other profession), but it does so largely in the abstract, whereas we should, surely, be more concerned with the concrete realities of the lives of sex workers.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
there's far too much hysteria about it though and people trying to stop teenagers (and adults) from meeting anyone over the internet outright. what is needed is for guidelines about internet use to be taught about rather than either saying "WOAHOAHAHAHOOOOOOOOA THE INTERNET!!!!!!111 ITS FULL OF PERVES!!!!!!!!11" or saying "who cares, it never happens at all so let them get on with it"
for me the guidelines should be something like this:
1) ALWAYS SPEAK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
2) Look at obvious warning signs of psychos when talking to soemone on te internet, for example:
talking about sex all the time
asking personal questions about your cock/pussy straight away
asking questions like "do you want to see my cock" or "can i see a picture of your pussy"
going mad when you don't talk to them
threatening you
emailing/phoning you all the time
not being interested in anything other than sex - eg not taking interest in you as a person
asking prurient stuff about sexual abuse etc
demanding to meet straight away
3) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
4) not going to their house ffs (or inviting them to yours)
5) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
6) meeting in a public place and if you're a teenager, bringing a friend.
7) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
for me the guidelines should be something like this:
1) ALWAYS SPEAK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
2) Look at obvious warning signs of psychos when talking to soemone on te internet, for example:
talking about sex all the time
asking personal questions about your cock/pussy straight away
asking questions like "do you want to see my cock" or "can i see a picture of your pussy"
going mad when you don't talk to them
threatening you
emailing/phoning you all the time
not being interested in anything other than sex - eg not taking interest in you as a person
asking prurient stuff about sexual abuse etc
demanding to meet straight away
3) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
4) not going to their house ffs (or inviting them to yours)
5) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
6) meeting in a public place and if you're a teenager, bringing a friend.
7) ALWAYS TALK ON THE PHONE WITH THE PERSON BEFORE MEETING THEM
No the internet isnt `full` of perves Its just a good idea to be careful with kids.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Your llink is to an anti prostitution catholic organisation that makes no attempt to hide it's prohibitionist agenda.
I guess you have a point. The Catholic church does have a great deal of expertise in the area of child abuse after all.
That was only one of the links.Any comments on the rest ?Anything to say about grooming kids on the net or prostitutes that DONT actually want to work on the game or are they all just myths ?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Criminals exist in all walks of life. What is a myth is the political world view that equates ALL prostitution as trafficking and ALL sex workers as victims. They are not victims to be rescued. They are workers who are demanding rights.
I looked on the other link. What was I supposed to be looking for? Was it this ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...to-conceal-sex-abuse-says-report-1828168.html
Or this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...to-conceal-sex-abuse-says-report-1828168.html
Now I have read your links and commented on them. Would you please pay me the same respect and listen to the voices of the real victims in this, sex workers themselves.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Sits down next to sexy lesbian.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
except, no one on this thread argues anything like that, and it is deeply dishonest to pretend that we are doing, or to treat us as if we are doing.
The government did go an awfully long way to promoting such a view, but it has blown up in their faces.
Now there is as much a danger from people denying that any trafficking takes place, as there is from the moralists who say all sex workers are trafficked.
actually, all you've done there is repost the links and dismiss them.dylans said:
I listen to sex workers more than you know
I never said ALL prostiutiton is trafficking i said SOME.I never said ALL sex workers are victims either.Tut tut.I have, however, dealt with prostitutes who WERE forced to work when they didnt want to, especially those brought across from the likes of latvia and poland.I have also had dealings with child sex workers who were forced into the game.Do you deny that not ALL workers are happy in their work and that SOME of them are actually being forced into it ?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Then please be my guest. Tell me the value to your argument of a reactionary Catholic organisation which makes no apology for its belief that all sex work should be prohibited.
Even though that wasnt in response to me ,may i comment ?
If men and women are happy to work in the sex industry thats up to them and theyve got my support.Just as those that DONT want to work there but cant find a way out because of the brothel keepers or gangmasters bullying or blackmailing them, theyve got my support too.Its not an either or situation.Some people are happy in the industry, some are forced into it isnt that true ?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Does the fact of the views and failings of "the church" render the data collated by their researchers worthless?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
personally, i would look at any data from them far more suspiciously, and need to examine it more closely than I might other pieces of research. One should always examine such research closely tho, the work cited recently about the massive exageration of the amount of sex trafficking, upon closer inspection, did actually point out that there was still a significant such trade, altho nothing like as much as the government was claiming.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Precisely.
I try very hard never to read research of any sort without examining the data and how it was arrived at (tedious though that can be). An academic paper can "spin" all sorts of results that fit to the sponsor's preconceptions, but the data behind the results, if scrutinised properly, can't lie, even by omission (as omission of data is just as noticable as "spinning" of results).
And of course you should always hear it straight from the horses mouth too .After all , its the sex workers that do the job not us.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think the data and views of an organisation that believes all prostitution should be criminalised is suspect, yeah.
I think the data and views of an organisation that supports the prohibition of sex work is suspect, yeah.
I think the data and views of an organisation that labels all sex workers as victims is suspect, yeah
I think the data and views of an organisation whose own members have been abusing children for decades and an organisation that has done its damnedest to cover up this abuse to be suspect, yeah.
But, hey that's just me.
Personally I prefer to listen to the words of sex workers themselves.
Similar threads
