UK: Job Centre seeks women to strip [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : UK: Job Centre seeks women to strip

mynameis

29-10-2007, 06:59 PM

Job Centre seeks women to strip as £8-an-hour 'webcam performers'
By DAN NEWLING - More by this author » Last updated at 00:16am on 27th October 2007

A Jobcentre has provoked outrage after it was found to be advertising for women to strip for web cams on Internet sex sites for £8 an hour.

According to the advertisement, the role involves "explicit dialogue" and "performing for clients' or customers' fantasies".

Astonishingly, the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that it is legally obliged to carry the advertisements.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/webgirlsDM2610_468x366.jpg

However politicians and family campaigners lined up to criticise the policy last night - claiming it legitimises the sex industry and encourages women to work in it.

The controversial advertisement was posted in a Jobcentre Plus branch in Cardiff, south Wales and nationwide on the agency's website.

It offered an hourly wage for women to work 15 to 40 hours a week, between 9pm and midday. There is no pension.

Placed by a company called Cybtrader, the advertisement - which remains within legal boundaries - is unshamedly brazen when it comes to describing exactly what the role entails.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489964&in_page_id=1770

adimon

29-10-2007, 07:04 PM

Astonishingly, the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that it is legally obliged to carry the advertisements.

Yes. In a free-market economy, why treat certain jobs that break no laws as evil?

However politicians and family campaigners lined up to criticise the policy last night - claiming it legitimises the sex industry and encourages women to work in it.

The sex industry IS legitimate. Are you saying that people working in it are not legitimate people?

Encourage? No. People have a choice which jobs to apply for. No-one's putting a gun to their head.

Placed by a company called Cybtrader, the advertisement - which remains within legal boundaries - is unshamedly brazen when it comes to describing exactly what the role entails.

I guess they don't want people to waste their time misjudging the job description and being offended later in the process.

What's your opinion mynameis? Do you think sex is bad, and that people should not be able to view sex, or work in the sex industry?

EDIT: It also says NOTHING about being a female-only job. ;)

eternal_spirit

29-10-2007, 07:21 PM

Anyone who's been on the Internet long enough. Would know that pay per view is the latest scam. Forget Conversation, chat up lines with the hope of meeting a girl, they wan't your money now to perform on web cam. Girls wan't to watch guys for free, women will/wan't to charge men to watch.

I wonder if they want male cam performers?
At £8 an hour I'd be willing to be a "professional wanker" I've been called a wanker often enough, so I have some work experience.

If a girl got this job, can you blame her? £5 and a few fuckin pence per hour for working at McDonalds, or where ever. Or £8 and hour for a cam show.

veritas2007

29-10-2007, 07:26 PM

There's more to that article which you should read. I believe the issue here is exploitation. To quote the article:

Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign, said: "There is a real danger that impressionable young adults will be forced into these amoral, degrading and inappropriate jobs. "

Elsa Hill, a manager at Eaves, a charity that houses women trafficked into prostitution, said: "It is wrong. The Jobcentre should have and could have rejected the advertisement.

"There are grades of work in the sex industry, but appearing on an internet web camera on a sex site is ultimately indistinguishable from prostitution.

"Whatever the myths around the sex industry, the reality is very different: it is abusive, degrading and humiliating.

"It is the Government's responsibility to do something about this: they should be looking at criminalising the buying of sexual services, not advertising it and encouraging it."

I think they make some valid points.

veritas2007

29-10-2007, 07:28 PM

We posted at the same time Eternal_Spirit! My response was to Adimon

I wonder if they want male cam performers?
At £8 an hour I'd be willing to be a "professional wanker" I've been called a wanker often enough, so I have some work experience.

LOL!!! Interesting thought although I can't imagine my beer belly would be a turn on for most women!!

mynameis

29-10-2007, 07:29 PM

What goes on the internet stays on the internet damaging your reputation forever.

eternal_spirit

29-10-2007, 07:33 PM

It used to be a case of and still is at the Job centre, You tell them what experience, what qualifications, training, and what type of work you are capable of. The details are matched to any available jobs. If nothing matches your capabilities, meaning there are no jobs available for you. You will then be asked to consider other types of work, some people could end up more or less being forced into this webcam job.

adimon

29-10-2007, 07:43 PM

I think they make some valid points.

"There are grades of work in the sex industry, but appearing on an internet web camera on a sex site is ultimately indistinguishable from prostitution.

"Whatever the myths around the sex industry, the reality is very different: it is abusive, degrading and humiliating.

Prostitution involves performing sexual acts with another person, usually with no consideration for your own pleasure, and due to archaic anti-brothel laws in the UK, this is usually done from the street which creates a risk for it's workers.

Perfoming on a webcam does not have to involve another person, there is no obligation to 'make the other person climax', and can be done in a safe location.

How is this indistinguishable? Where's the abuse, degradation and humiliation if it is someone's chosen job?

eternal_spirit

29-10-2007, 07:51 PM

It's sill not something you'd wan't your mother daughter or sister to do is it?

eternal_spirit

29-10-2007, 07:54 PM

It's a gateway to prostitution. Some clients will offer more money to meet in real life. And many cam girls will be tempted.

howie

29-10-2007, 07:55 PM

mynameis

29-10-2007, 07:58 PM

Nice find.

adimon

29-10-2007, 08:21 PM

Gateshead, Manchester & Swansea Jobcentres were caught advertising "jobs" for prostitutes, they were for women only & said nothing about no obligation- meaning girls would have to take the job or have their benefits stopped.

Link (http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_headline=escort-ads-at-the-jobcentre&method=full&objectid=19301995&siteid=50081-name_page.html)

Well it was for an escort agency, not a prostitution racket, but even so, if there's anything wrong then this is an oversight on the part of the DWP, a civil service slip-up.

No reason to abandon the free-market or persecute workers in the sex industry. :)

mynameis

29-10-2007, 08:28 PM

Another reason this is a bad precedent is that it creates an environment of motherless children. If mothers are out doing this work, they are not with children during the off school hours usually.

Well it was for an escort agency, not a prostitution racket, but even so, if there's anything wrong then this is an oversight on the part of the DWP, a civil service slip-up.

No reason to abandon the free-market or persecute workers in the sex industry. :)

veritas2007

29-10-2007, 08:39 PM

Prostitution involves performing sexual acts with another person, usually with no consideration for your own pleasure, and due to archaic anti-brothel laws in the UK, this is usually done from the street which creates a risk for it's workers.

Perfoming on a webcam does not have to involve another person, there is no obligation to 'make the other person climax', and can be done in a safe location.

How is this indistinguishable? Where's the abuse, degradation and humiliation if it is someone's chosen job?

I'm not sure I 100% agree with your statement but I follow your drift. Again, I think the article was written from a view point of exploitation, at least that's how I read it.

Surely its wrong to canvass the jobless for this kind of employment? If a person wants to freely enter into this industry because they choose to, fine but I doubt very few are involved out of choice IMHO.

eternal_spirit

29-10-2007, 08:47 PM

Some people are still fooled with the titles of these jobs....A prostitute is an Escort, they provide the same sexual services for a price. Escorts have been advertised in local newspapers for sometime now. See they can't use the word prostitute, to advertise, but they get round this by using the word escort.

It's the same with massage parlours, to the unwise that's exactly what it means, but the reality is that it's a cover for a whore house ( massage parlour )

At a guess, prostitutes in the Uk are used by rich foreign business men and Elite types with much money. I've never used a prostitute and don't know of anyone who has. So someone must be using them?

howie

29-10-2007, 08:56 PM

The jobs were for prostitutes, calling them escorts is just a fancy title to fool people like the adverts for store replenishment officers (shelf stackers) at the same jobcentre do.

veritas2007

29-10-2007, 08:58 PM

Its referred to as "the oldest profession" so I'm in no doubt that people use them e_s.

veritas2007

29-10-2007, 08:59 PM

store replenishment officers (shelf stackers)

Lol, that's some spin.

vera susa

29-10-2007, 10:40 PM

Well it was for an escort agency, not a prostitution racket, but even so, if there's anything wrong then this is an oversight on the part of the DWP, a civil service slip-up.

No reason to abandon the free-market or persecute workers in the sex industry. :)

I beg to differ here. Thanks to that "FREE" Market
and CUSTOMERS for the sex INDUSTRY, THE SLAVE TRADE
is NOW BIGGER THAN it's 400 year PEAK of "stocking"
Europe and the New World with "workers".

And just guess which INDUSTRY works as a COVER for the
SLAVE TRADE. Just that INDUSTRY that DISCOURAGES
it's "workers" from TALKING about HOW they "GOT INTO IT".

Oh, and that thing about Gov. Employment Agencies being
able to cut you off your PRE-PAID, THROUGH TAXES, support
income....it used to be, "Go on the Dole OR take up PROSTITUTION..."

adimon

30-10-2007, 12:50 AM

The jobs were for prostitutes, calling them escorts is just a fancy title to fool people like the adverts for store replenishment officers (shelf stackers) at the same jobcentre do.

Really? What if I told you I knew people who had worked as escorts and they never had to have sex with anybody?

There are lots of people who just want company for an evening out and can afford to pay for it you know. :)

somewarez

30-10-2007, 01:31 AM

Shame they dont want men otherwise I might not be so stuck trying to find work...

Really its all what you allow yourself to do, and how you feel about your looks/body. (that in no means I would get plastic surgery for it)...

I've done global webcam for free in the past, I dont do it now but thats only because the website changed from its primary traditions.

I don't mind women looking at my body, yeah its a little strange getting PMs from guys etc but i either ignored them or said sorry not that way inclined. They either accepted or got ignored.

TBH its all down to the person if they want to do that or they don't.

When I was doing it the net was far younger and far less trackable. so safer for those who were into that kind of thing. I stopped when a good friend I met while doing that told me a site was recording and releasing vids from people like me.

I wasn't harming anyone, I was just pleasing and been free from these stupid sexual rules we place upon ourselves. FFS I bet 25% of you would like to go to a nudist beach for whatever reason.. Yet I bet you wouldn't dare due to self control.

Unfortunately the site I was visiting/showing on pretty rapidly turned into a gay scene, 90% of the people were men and often gay, so viewers of me were men and that put me off. I haven't shown on any site since. But that was 4 years ago and I am sure things have changed and there is more freedom. Nothing against gays btw, it was just not my thing.

£8 for sitting in your own room alone is good cash per hour, far better than minimum wage and probably get a lot more if they went solo and advertised correct.

Some people like to Show, some don't. For those that don't mind its a good earner. Don't judge everyone by your own inhibitions.

I am not a prostitute. I am just an exhibitionist. Also I no longer do it and haven't for 4 years.

I am just stating why people may do it to offer a varying disagreement.

Live and let live, OFC there will be the ppl who think they have to get tit enlargement etc, but that is their choice. And often they don't look any better.

As far as wage goes like I said earlier its a bit low to what they could make if they went solo, but going solo takes time and webskills.

it aint that bad if you can accept and enjoy doing it and you can still keep self respect. I would say To anyone thinking of it ONLY do what you want to do.

Well thats just me. yet another odd post by your regular oddbod ;)

whitenight639

30-10-2007, 01:54 AM

Hey mate, it irritates me that the repressed social state we live in today means you have to write a self justification reply like this one, I cant see why anybody would oppose grown men or women stripping (etc) alone on cam for a decent wage, yes it would be nice if there were other avenues for these men and women to earn this kinda money in other ways but our educational system is shit and some people arnt acedemic. I imagine its a great job for a confident young father/ mother to do whilst there kids are at school atleast they can keep a roof over there kids head and give them a better life. I imagine most of these women/ men get to work from home and are treated well by there employers. I also cant see how there ''forced'' into it, if thats the case then there needs to be new jobs created or the benifit system needs looking at!

Shame they dont want men otherwise I might not be so stuck trying to find work...

Really its all what you allow yourself to do, and how you feel about your looks/body. (that in no means I would get plastic surgery for it)...

I've done global webcam for free in the past, I dont do it now but thats only because the website changed from its primary traditions.

I don't mind women looking at my body, yeah its a little strange getting PMs from guys etc but i either ignored them or said sorry not that way inclined. They either accepted or got ignored.

TBH its all down to the person if they want to do that or they don't.

When I was doing it the net was far younger and far less trackable. so safer for those who were into that kind of thing. I stopped when a good friend I met while doing that told me a site was recording and releasing vids from people like me.

I wasn't harming anyone, I was just pleasing and been free from these stupid sexual rules we place upon ourselves. FFS I bet 25% of you would like to go to a nudist beach for whatever reason.. Yet I bet you wouldn't dare due to self control.

Unfortunately the site I was visiting/showing on pretty rapidly turned into a gay scene, 90% of the people were men and often gay, so viewers of me were men and that put me off. I haven't shown on any site since. But that was 4 years ago and I am sure things have changed and there is more freedom. Nothing against gays btw, it was just not my thing.

£8 for sitting in your own room alone is good cash per hour, far better than minimum wage and probably get a lot more if they went solo and advertised correct.

Some people like to Show, some don't. For those that don't mind its a good earner. Don't judge everyone by your own inhibitions.

I am not a prostitute. I am just an exhibitionist. Also I no longer do it and haven't for 4 years.

I am just stating why people may do it to offer a varying disagreement.

Live and let live, OFC there will be the ppl who think they have to get tit enlargement etc, but that is their choice. And often they don't look any better.

As far as wage goes like I said earlier its a bit low to what they could make if they went solo, but going solo takes time and webskills.

it aint that bad if you can accept and enjoy doing it and you can still keep self respect. I would say To anyone thinking of it ONLY do what you want to do.

Well thats just me. yet another odd post by your regular oddbod ;)

peachped

30-10-2007, 02:07 AM

Nice to see our local jobcenter manager logged in. :rolleyes:

somewarez

30-10-2007, 02:09 AM

Whitenight you hit the nail on he head :)

somewarez

30-10-2007, 02:28 AM

Peachped Cos I dont understand, are you saying I am Jobcenter manager?

peachped

30-10-2007, 02:36 AM

"I also cant see how there ''forced'' into it, if thats the case then there needs to be new jobs created or the benifit system needs looking at!"

No somwarez I am disagreeing with whiteknight. I believe that it will become policy that if women refuse to take such 'job opportunities' they will be denied benefit.

somewarez

30-10-2007, 02:46 AM

anything can happen with the JCs rules :(

lizzy

30-10-2007, 02:49 AM

somewarez

30-10-2007, 02:56 AM

whitenight639

30-10-2007, 02:57 AM

lizzy

30-10-2007, 04:21 AM

Lizzy hon I agree, but at the time I wasn't aware, yet I would never put anyone down who may awaken but was in the same place I was att. It just breeds hipocracy.

I am not defending this but I at least have understanding of it.
Hi Somewarez.
I read your message,just had to check back that i was on the right train here.
OK, it's really OK. I know that most of the guys here are nice guys, dudes, blokes....and I am sure that you are one of them.
Just because we have a joint it does'nt mean we are going to become herion addicts, same with stripping moving on to prositition, but you have got to have a really strong self image not to allow stripping to erode a healthy sense of the ethical. Once they have us 'downgrading' ourselves and now making it normal, they laugh, jeer and make their profits.
By the way, I am an Alan Watt enthusiast, cutting through the matrix is my hobby.
love,lizzy

vera susa

30-10-2007, 05:19 AM

And the reason "They" can get away with MAKING US DEMAND THIS POISON,
is because the EPIDEMIC of STD'S that are KILLING this and THE NEXT GENERATION, is what "tipped them off" to the CANCER LINK of (particularly multiple 'partner'), SEX-FOR-FUN.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12747

It's no more to do with 'religious taboos'
than CANNIBALISM is a 'religious taboo',
it KILLS A SOCIETY, that simple!

tangy lemon

30-10-2007, 11:41 AM

Hi all, I have read this thread with interest because I recall a couple of years ago I read the following article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml) about a woman in Germany who faced losing her unemployment benefit because she refused to take a job as a prostitute (prostitution is legal in Germany, or at least was at the time).

This was two years ago and we now have adverts for prostitutes in the Job Centre (a prostitute is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as someone who engages in sexual activity in exchange for remuneration, usually money) and this is totally unacceptable as it reinforces some people's misguided beliefs that sexual activity in exchange for money is acceptable, which it is not, in my opinion.

Some of the opinions I have read, especially adimon's, seem to miss the point that the sex 'industry' is one of the most seediest and immoral industries known to humanity. Generally, the people involved in the sex industry are people who are insecure and require the attention they receive from their 'partners' and the viewers of their acts in order to feel good about themselves, something which reinforces a negative self-belief (people only like me for sex, therefore I need to do more of the things that attract attention). This is not to mention the people who are forced into the sex trade (something which is vastly under-reported in the UK).

Also, again in general, others involved in the sex industry are exhibitionists and thrill-seekers who revel in the buzz they get from the things they do. In this sense the sexual activities they undertake is identical to a heroin user getting their fix - in other words people are addicted to the sexual activities they perform.

At the end of the day, this has been coming a long time. The British Government are using the stepping stones approach to soften public opinion towards the sex industry and aim to legalise it (do you remember the call for legalising brothels a while ago when the prostitute murders were being committed? Problem-Reaction-Solution).

I guess the Government want their slice of the income from this 'industry' and further wish to hasten the moral decline of the country.

Adimon and all those who appear to support this - how would you feel if your mother, wife, daughter or sister was involved? Would you be as supportive if your wife came home and told you her new job was to prostitute herself? Do you actually engage in this behaviour yourself?

This is just another example of how women (and men) are treated as nothing more than objects of desire, something which is really aimed at desensitising people to the fact that whoever they are wanking over is actually a human being with human feelings and human hopes and fears. It is a clever psychological trick which attempts to remove emotion from sex and one which must be stopped at all costs, before the generation after next grow up with the attitude that sex is just as disposable as the latest fashion accessory.

Sex, or rather lovemaking, is something that has been perverted and taken to extremes in some cases (eg auto-erotic asphyxiation). This is not natural (in the sense that it would not occur under normal circumstances) and we should restore the sense of moral decency in this country and lead the way in ensuring the sex 'industry' is not allowed to advertise itself anywhere.

And for the record, I am not religious, I don't have any hang-ups about being naked or having 'normal' sex; I just have a good sense of what is good and what isn't and the sex industry definitely isn't good.

Thanks for reading

Tangy

whitenight639

30-10-2007, 12:30 PM

good first post tangy, I see where your coming from but have to disagree maybe its because im male but i dont have a problem with prostitution, (not that iv ever used one or intend to) I Cant imagine many circumstances where someone willingly chooses to be a prostitute but some must, i dont like the thought of anyone being pressured into the sex industry, but I have no problem with prostitution because its been around as long as man has, sex is a need just like eating or drinking.

However there is a difference between sex and love making, and this thread is not about sex its about stripping (etc) on cam and we've all somehow got distracted.

lizzy

30-10-2007, 01:46 PM

tangy lemon

30-10-2007, 02:04 PM

Hi WhiteKnight, thanks for welcoming me and thanks for your response.

I don't understand why the fact that you are male should automatically mean that you don't have a problem with prostitution. I would assume that many males in the UK do have a problem with prostitution and while a minority of men may think it is acceptable (due to conditioning over the years), this is part of a wider culture of hedonistic behaviour in the UK (i.e. the excess alcohol culture and its associated problems - violence, promiscuous, unprotected sex etc).

I can understand why some people don't have a problem with prostitution as the media and Government have done a good job in managing peoples' perceptions over the years. I guess that people think 'it is their body and they can do what they want with it' and this is the popular misconception that allows this to go on.

The reality is that the person prostituting themselves has had to make a decision at some point to sell themselves in this way. My view is that the person had to make the choice to prostitute themselves out of an act of desperation (for money for drugs or to live on), to get a kick out of (probably a minority), or they didn't have a choice and has been forced into doing it for some reason.

I dispute the distinction that the thread is about stripping because the original article (and advert) make it clear that the position is for a 'webcam performer' whose duties involve 'explicit sexual dialogue' and 'performing to webcam for customers or clients fantasies'. What it doesn't mention are what other duties are to be performed, probably 'at the applicants discretion', which is nothing more than a euphemism for performing sex acts on oneself while being viewed by a webcam. While this is just conjecture, it is standard for companies of this nature to sell such services as it is how they make their money.

Allowing the company to advertise has added credibility to this sordid 'industry' because it is commonly known by the internet users that 'performing' to a webcam means a lot more than just talking dirty while being naked. I would hazard a guess that a lot of people using the 'net have at some point being subjected to a pop-up that promised something along the lines of 'see her p*ssy live on webcam'. People understand that 'performing' to a web cam for 'customers and clients fantasies' is going to involve a lot more than talking dirty to them.

If companies like this are allowed to advertise with the Job Centre, and this could set a precedent, what happens to those who are on benefits who refuse the job? They would get penalised under the existing rules and could have their benefit stopped, which is unfair and unacceptable.

Just another brick in the wall.

Tangy

tangy lemon

30-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Hi Lizzy, thanks for your reply and support.

I agree that it appears the Government are attempting to destroy peoples' emotions, especially with something as powerful as sex. I understand that in some sex rituals there is supposed to be some form of energy released at the point of orgasm and judging by the apparent direction towards emotionless sex, I wonder if the emotions get in the way of this energy being released, i.e. being out of one's usual control?

Also, I have just thought that the shift in terminology from love-making (implying feelings of love are involved) to the bland and non-descript word 'sex', which is devoid of any emotional tie, may be of some importance in changing the perceptions of people.

Luckily, I was brought up in a family that has strong moral values and I really appreciate how I was brought up because when I see some of the people in the UK it seems we are worlds apart in our thoughts and actions.

Thanks again Lizzy and you keep it going!

Tangy

howie

30-10-2007, 02:40 PM

lizzy

30-10-2007, 03:02 PM

Gateshead are still advertising escort jobs on their website (http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/Internet/viewVacancy.do?selectedVacancy=0&ref=FEG/13330)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2350/escortjob30oct07jq7.jpg

Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2327864.ece)

North Wales Pioneer (http://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/Jobcentre-ad-seeks-escorts.3155337.jp)

OMG. The Gov. is pimping now,,,,,,and if you don't take this job and put yourself in danger your benefits could be affected.
It is sooooooo sick. Next they will say you take your kid along for a couple pounds extra.

adimon

30-10-2007, 04:46 PM

No somwarez I am disagreeing with whiteknight. I believe that it will become policy that if women refuse to take such 'job opportunities' they will be denied benefit.

Rest assured that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is aware of this issue, and is setup very well to protect the worker and not the state.

A prostitute is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as someone who engages in sexual activity in exchange for remuneration, usually money, and this is totally unacceptable as it reinforces some people's misguided beliefs that sexual activity in exchange for money is acceptable, which it is not, in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the world over, your opinion is in the minority. Numerous studies have been shown, for example, that in places where prostitution is illegal, that the incidence of rape is far higher. Why shouldn't the government draw revenue from the taxation of the sex industry, which can then be spend on things that benefit society - e.g. health, education etc?

Some of the opinions I have read, especially adimon's, seem to miss the point that the sex 'industry' is one of the most seediest and immoral industries known to humanity.

I'm not missing the point. I have a different opinion to you. Your opinion, as I've said is in the minority, quite old-fashioned, and heavily influenced by Christianity.

Generally, the people involved in the sex industry are people who are insecure and require the attention they receive from their 'partners' and the viewers of their acts in order to feel good about themselves, something which reinforces a negative self-belief (people only like me for sex, therefore I need to do more of the things that attract attention).

And this generalisation is based on what? How many workers in the sex industry have you met?

This is not to mention the people who are forced into the sex trade (something which is vastly under-reported in the UK).

This is a separate matter entirely, and a serious problem, though unrelated to webcam performers.

Also, again in general, others involved in the sex industry are exhibitionists and thrill-seekers who revel in the buzz they get from the things they do. In this sense the sexual activities they undertake is identical to a heroin user getting their fix - in other words people are addicted to the sexual activities they perform.

Another damning generalisation? Evidence?

At the end of the day, this has been coming a long time. The British Government are using the stepping stones approach to soften public opinion towards the sex industry and aim to legalise it (do you remember the call for legalising brothels a while ago when the prostitute murders were being committed? Problem-Reaction-Solution).

Rather than try to second guess what long-term government policy on a matter is, why not actually look at the legislation, and the pre-Bill paperwork such as White Papers?

I guess the Government want their slice of the income from this 'industry' and further wish to hasten the moral decline of the country.

Please explain to me how the country declines morally by legalising brothels? All it means is greater protection for prostitutes. Don't you agree that people are entitled to be safe at work?

Adimon and all those who appear to support this - how would you feel if your mother, wife, daughter or sister was involved? Would you be as supportive if your wife came home and told you her new job was to prostitute herself? Do you actually engage in this behaviour yourself?

My mother is legally responsible for herself, and if she chose to work as a prostitute then its her choice. It wouldn't bother me, because I'm sure she has sex with my father anyway. Do you find the idea of your mother as a sexual person offensive tangylemon?

I'm not married, but if I was I would ask my wife not to work as a prostitute, not for any moral reasons, but because I would worry that it would have an impact on our personal life. If we discovered it had no negative impact on our life, and I was certain that she was taking the necessary health precautions, then I would have no issue.

As for my future-daughter, once she is 18, then she is also free to do as she pleases. I would encourage her to try other careers with more challenge, reward and variety, but if it's what she really wanted to do, then I'd accept that.

This is just another example of how women (and men) are treated as nothing more than objects of desire, something which is really aimed at desensitising people to the fact that whoever they are wanking over is actually a human being with human feelings and human hopes and fears.

I don't understand what point you're making here. Perhaps you could clarify please? Remember that being a webcam performer is personal choice.

It is a clever psychological trick which attempts to remove emotion from sex and one which must be stopped at all costs, before the generation after next grow up with the attitude that sex is just as disposable as the latest fashion accessory.

Sex, or rather lovemaking, is something that has been perverted and taken to extremes in some cases (eg auto-erotic asphyxiation). This is not natural (in the sense that it would not occur under normal circumstances) and we should restore the sense of moral decency in this country and lead the way in ensuring the sex 'industry' is not allowed to advertise itself anywhere.

First of all, sex and love are two separate things, and the two do not have to go together. It might be desirable, but not essential for them to be together. Why should they?

Secondly, what you find normal and desirable is not the same for anyone else?

Do you want sexual activity to be restricted and policed. E.g. people into asphyxiation to be prosecuted????? :confused:

And for the record, I am not religious, I don't have any hang-ups about being naked or having 'normal' sex; I just have a good sense of what is good and what isn't and the sex industry definitely isn't good.

Once again, just your opinion. And a minority one.

I would assume that many males in the UK do have a problem with prostitution and while a minority of men may think it is acceptable (due to conditioning over the years), this is part of a wider culture of hedonistic behaviour in the UK (i.e. the excess alcohol culture and its associated problems - violence, promiscuous, unprotected sex etc).

Do you want to stop people from living their lives the way they want to and force them to conform to your moral stance? There's a word for that. It's called fundamentalism.

If you don't like porn, and think it's 'nasty', 'degrading' or whatever, why should this apply to other people?????? :confused:

I guess that people think 'it is their body and they can do what they want with it'

Correct.

The reality is that the person prostituting themselves has had to make a decision at some point to sell themselves in this way.

Yes, so it's their choice. Liberty, remember?

My view is that the person had to make the choice to prostitute themselves out of an act of desperation (for money for drugs or to live on), to get a kick out of (probably a minority), or they didn't have a choice and has been forced into doing it for some reason.

I'm sorry, but this is naive and incorrect. Read Jonathan Aitken's account of his time working as a gigolo on the French riviera, or any one of many books written by women, containing their memoirs of being a prostitute, and you will discover that desperation and force are NOT the only reasons people become prostitutes. Yes, these reasons do exist, and they are problems, but they can be tackled separately.

I dispute the distinction that the thread is about stripping because the original article (and advert) make it clear that the position is for a 'webcam performer' whose duties involve 'explicit sexual dialogue' and 'performing to webcam for customers or clients fantasies'.

What it doesn't mention are what other duties are to be performed, probably 'at the applicants discretion', which is nothing more than a euphemism for performing sex acts on oneself while being viewed by a webcam. While this is just conjecture, it is standard for companies of this nature to sell such services as it is how they make their money.

I'm pretty sure any person of reasonable intelligence would realise that the service may extend to exhibitionist masturbation. Funnily enough, some people dont have a problem with that either. Do you want to lock them up?

If companies like this are allowed to advertise with the Job Centre, and this could set a precedent, what happens to those who are on benefits who refuse the job? They would get penalised under the existing rules and could have their benefit stopped, which is unfair and unacceptable.

This is just supposition.

Also, I have just thought that the shift in terminology from love-making (implying feelings of love are involved) to the bland and non-descript word 'sex', which is devoid of any emotional tie, may be of some importance in changing the perceptions of people.

If you want only to make love, then that's your choice. But don't knock fucking til you've tried it. ;)

Luckily, I was brought up in a family that has strong moral values and I really appreciate how I was brought up because when I see some of the people in the UK it seems we are worlds apart in our thoughts and actions.

Lucky you. I was brought up in a family that had strong values of freedom and personal choice and responsibility. Why should the responsibility of my life be controlled by puritans like yourself?

Great debate this. :)

on the road

30-10-2007, 04:57 PM

Rest assured that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is aware of this issue, and is setup very well to protect the worker and not the state.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the world over, your opinion is in the minority. Numerous studies have been shown, for example, that in places where prostitution is illegal, that the incidence of rape is far higher. Why shouldn't the government draw revenue from the taxation of the sex industry, which can then be spend on things that benefit society - e.g. health, education etc?

I'm not missing the point. I have a different opinion to you. Your opinion, as I've said is in the minority, quite old-fashioned, and heavily influenced by Christianity.

And this generalisation is based on what? How many workers in the sex industry have you met?

This is a separate matter entirely, and a serious problem, though unrelated to webcam performers.

Another damning generalisation? Evidence?

Rather than try to second guess what long-term government policy on a matter is, why not actually look at the legislation, and the pre-Bill paperwork such as White Papers?

Please explain to me how the country declines morally by legalising brothels? All it means is greater protection for prostitutes. Don't you agree that people are entitled to be safe at work?

My mother is legally responsible for herself, and if she chose to work as a prostitute then its her choice. It wouldn't bother me, because I'm sure she has sex with my father anyway. Do you find the idea of your mother as a sexual person offensive tangylemon?

I'm not married, but if I was I would ask my wife not to work as a prostitute, not for any moral reasons, but because I would worry that it would have an impact on our personal life. If we discovered it had no negative impact on our life, and I was certain that she was taking the necessary health precautions, then I would have no issue.

As for my future-daughter, once she is 18, then she is also free to do as she pleases. I would encourage her to try other careers with more challenge, reward and variety, but if it's what she really wanted to do, then I'd accept that.

I don't understand what point you're making here. Perhaps you could clarify please? Remember that being a webcam performer is personal choice.

First of all, sex and love are two separate things, and the two do not have to go together. It might be desirable, but not essential for them to be together. Why should they?

Secondly, what you find normal and desirable is not the same for anyone else?

Do you want sexual activity to be restricted and policed. E.g. people into asphyxiation to be prosecuted????? :confused:

Once again, just your opinion. And a minority one.

Do you want to stop people from living their lives the way they want to and force them to conform to your moral stance? There's a word for that. It's called fundamentalism.

If you don't like porn, and think it's 'nasty', 'degrading' or whatever, why should this apply to other people?????? :confused:

Correct.

Yes, so it's their choice. Liberty, remember?

I'm sorry, but this is naive and incorrect. Read Jonathan Aitken's account of his time working as a gigolo on the French riviera, or any one of many books written by women, containing their memoirs of being a prostitute, and you will discover that desperation and force are NOT the only reasons people become prostitutes. Yes, these reasons do exist, and they are problems, but they can be tackled separately.

I'm pretty sure any person of reasonable intelligence would realise that the service may extend to exhibitionist masturbation. Funnily enough, some people dont have a problem with that either. Do you want to lock them up?

This is just supposition.

If you want only to make love, then that's your choice. But don't knock fucking til you've tried it. ;)

Lucky you. I was brought up in a family that had strong values of freedom and personal choice and responsibility. Why should the responsibility of my life be controlled by puritans like yourself?

Great debate this. :)

I get it your PRO sex industry.

you sound like a real cool guy

adimon

30-10-2007, 05:22 PM

I get it your PRO sex industry.

you sound like a real cool guy

I'm PRO people having individual freedom and responsibility for their lives, and the actions contained therein. I'm not in favour of puritanism or prohibition.

No one who has criticised the advertisement has answered my point about how it does NOT specify women, or explained to me how sex is a dangerous force in society.

Thanks for the compliment. :)

lizzy

30-10-2007, 05:43 PM

My mother is legally responsible for herself, and if she chose to work as a prostitute then its her choice. It wouldn't bother me, because I'm sure she has sex with my father anyway.............Says Adimon.

.............................Geez.....what a lovely son you turned out to be.
It is NOT a question of CHOICE. It is one of EXPLOITATION.
So you would like the pimps to take her taxes on this degrading acivity to enslave us a little more....Dont' tazer me Bro,........

lizzy

30-10-2007, 05:47 PM

I'm PRO people having individual freedom and responsibility for their lives, and the actions contained therein. I'm not in favour of puritanism or prohibition.

No one who has criticised the advertisement has answered my point about how it does NOT specify women, or explained to me how sex is a dangerous force in society.

Thanks for the compliment. :)

Government sponsered sex......yummy.
Move on with your logic, don't you see that is the hook. To seem Liberal and non condemming while they turn us into sluts.

kweli

30-10-2007, 06:06 PM

I dont think thats the case and its very rare you get jobs like this advertised on the jobcentre.

I'm sorry whitenight but I have to disagree with you too. My 18 year old daughter has come home on several occasions from the Job Centre with print - outs for this type of work. It's not as rare as you believe.

tangy lemon

30-10-2007, 11:12 PM

Hi Adimon, here is a response to the points you raised in relation to my post.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the world over, your opinion is in the minority. Numerous studies have been shown, for example, that in places where prostitution is illegal, that the incidence of rape is far higher. Why shouldn't the government draw revenue from the taxation of the sex industry, which can then be spend on things that benefit society - e.g. health, education etc?

I cannot say if my opinion is in the minority or not as I cannot vouch for everyone else on earth and I dismiss your assertion that my opinion is in the minority, as unless you can offer supporting evidence to back your claim then this is nothing more than opinion too, which you are entitled to express too.

As for the claim about the link between prostitution and rape, I think it is quite preposterous that any study would draw this conclusion because it is a well known fact that in rape cases the vast majority of those who have been raped were raped by someone known to them (source: http://www.truthaboutrape.co.uk/index2.html).

This indicates that the person committing the rape had some kind of interest in their intended target. If we extend this to cover the prostitution/rape link you allege, it would be like saying that these women would not have been raped simply for being a legally working prostitute, which may be true but considering that every expert in the field of rape counselling all state that rape is motivated by the need to have control and power as opposed to having sex, it would stand to reason that the rapist would still rape the woman even if she did work as a prostitute as it is not sex the rapist is motivated by.

(Source:http://www.rapeline.org.uk/helpline8.htm)

I'm not missing the point. I have a different opinion to you. Your opinion, as I've said is in the minority, quite old-fashioned, and heavily influenced by Christianity.

I don't know how you draw the conclusions you have about my opinion being influenced by Christianity because it certainly is not. My family have never being religious and I have never had any Christian teachings in my entire life. I don't practice religion either. My opinion is drawn from my own experience and self-education (as opposed to the indoctrination in schools and universities).

My opinion may seem old-fashioned to you if you mean old-fashioned in terms of the historical general moral consensus on the subject of sex but I assure you that those people had more moral fibre than many people today. They may have had a lot of extreme ideas and hang-ups about sex but overall they had a sound approach to promoting a healthier sex life than that apparently been promoted and justified today.

And this generalisation is based on what? How many workers in the sex industry have you met?

I have met several people who have been in the sex trade and every one of them had the same personality trait of insecurity and promiscuity. That isn't to say that all prostitutes have these traits, or at least do not display them publicly. My generalisation comes from reading about the motivation behind human behaviours and other media. I don't have any links for these sources but I am sure I could locate some to support my opinion.

This is not to mention the people who are forced into the sex trade (something which is vastly under-reported in the UK).

This is a separate matter entirely, and a serious problem, though unrelated to webcam performers.

It is a serious problem and one that is linked to this topic, not a separate matter. The fact is that there is a lot of money to be made in the sex trade and there are many unscrupulous people out there willing to take advantage of people and traffick people to become sex slaves. The reason they can do this in the first place is because of the demand for it from people who frequent prostitutes and view sex shows online (webcam performers) and the fact that there is money to be made from exploiting people. Therefore, if the sex industry did not exist, the financial reward for these sex traffickers would not exist thus taking away the incentive to do the despicable things they do.

I am willing to bet that there are many 'webcam performers' who do so under threat of violence and one wouldn't be able to distinguish these from others who are not under duress.

Also, again in general, others involved in the sex industry are exhibitionists and thrill-seekers who revel in the buzz they get from the things they do. In this sense the sexual activities they undertake is identical to a heroin user getting their fix - in other words people are addicted to the sexual activities they perform.

Another damning generalisation? Evidence?

It is a generalisation, as stated. Daming? I don't agree.

I made this point because by the very nature of what the person is doing they are inviting attention to be focused upon them and as they are doing it in a sexual environment, they must desire the attention they receive, even if this is on a subconscious level. If they were uncomfortable with the attention that this type of work is bound to attract, I would be so bold as to say that they would not do it because they would feel uncomfortable otherwise.

At the end of the day, this has been coming a long time. The British Government are using the stepping stones approach to soften public opinion towards the sex industry and aim to legalise it (do you remember the call for legalising brothels a while ago when the prostitute murders were being committed? Problem-Reaction-Solution).

Rather than try to second guess what long-term government policy on a matter is, why not actually look at the legislation, and the pre-Bill paperwork such as White Papers?

If you send me some links to the documents in question I will gladly read them. However, knowing how Governments have operated historically (as is well documented), I would suspect the legislation is not worth the white paper it is written on (pun intended). Governments, like any business, rely on marketing their ideas to the public in order to gain support for their policies (or sell products and services in the case of businesses).

In order to effectively market to people they have to use what I consider to be highly unethical marketing practices which the general public are not even aware of. I have a background in (ethical) marketing and have studied the techniques used in most marketing campaigns and if the public were educated about such techniques (many of which never see the light of day as they are considered to be 'propriety' by the businesses in question) there would be widespread outrage.

What I am saying is that no matter what the Government are proposing you can bet that it serves their long-term agenda. Their goals can only be done when the public opinion has been softened to the point of the public believing it was their own idea in the first place. We have seen these marketing techniques in effect with the coverage and debate surrounding the murders of the prostitutes in Ipswich. The media and responses surrounding this event were aimed at gauging public response to the idea of allowing prostitutes to work legally in brothels (something which the UN is lobbying for - the economic legitimisation of the sex industry. See http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/119.html).

Please explain to me how the country declines morally by legalising brothels? All it means is greater protection for prostitutes. Don't you agree that people are entitled to be safe at work?

The morality of the country would decline if brothels were legalised because it would legitimising an industry that is against the boundaries of public decency. The sex industry is something that should never be given credibility or legitimacy because it is based on exploitation, although many people do not see it that way due to being conditioned otherwise.

Can you imagine living next door to a brothel? How about families living next door to brothels?

I agree that people should be safe at work but if someone places them-self in a dangerous situation that is their choice. I don't see prostitution as a legitimate source of employment so I cannot condone having a brothel to keep prostitutes safe. Soldiers goes to war knowing they might get killed, prostitutes pick up clients knowing the risks involved and while I do not condone any person harming another, if you deliberately place yourself in a risky situation then you must accept the consequences of your actions.

My mother is legally responsible for herself, and if she chose to work as a prostitute then its her choice. It wouldn't bother me, because I'm sure she has sex with my father anyway. Do you find the idea of your mother as a sexual person offensive tangylemon?

I am glad that you have such respect for your mother's choice and I admire your stance for it. I don't find the idea of my mother being sexual offensive at all and I KNOW she has definitely had sex at least twice (I have a sister).

I'm not married, but if I was I would ask my wife not to work as a prostitute, not for any moral reasons, but because I would worry that it would have an impact on our personal life. If we discovered it had no negative impact on our life, and I was certain that she was taking the necessary health precautions, then I would have no issue.

If you worry about the effect it would have on your personal life, imagine what effect it would have on others who take a less liberal view on prostitution.

Again, I admire your stance for sticking to your principles by not having an issue with your wife being a prostitute. I would have an issue with this as I believe that all relationships should be monogamous, unless explicitly agreed and informed consent given between those involved, and I would consider this to be unfaithful. Just my opinion and I know many won't agree but I say it nonetheless, old-fashioned or not.

As for my future-daughter, once she is 18, then she is also free to do as she pleases. I would encourage her to try other careers with more challenge, reward and variety, but if it's what she really wanted to do, then I'd accept that.

Your point here appears to say that working in the sex industry is undesirable over other careers. Could you clarify your point and inform me what careers you would prefer she chose?

This is just another example of how women (and men) are treated as nothing more than objects of desire, something which is really aimed at desensitising people to the fact that whoever they are wanking over is actually a human being with human feelings and human hopes and fears.

I don't understand what point you're making here. Perhaps you could clarify please? Remember that being a webcam performer is personal choice.

The point I am making here is the increasing trend of men and women who view their preferred choice of sexual partner, other men or women, as nothing more than an object of desire, sex, lust, etc. To illustrate the point, how many times have you watched a porn film while engaging or leading to a sexual act and thought about what that person is actually like in 'real' life? Have you ever considered what they hope for in life? What they fear?

The point is that the media and a group of people in public believe that both males and females, especially those who fit the stereotypical 'sex-god or goddess' look that is fed to us by the media, are primarily physical sexual objects.

Disturbingly, this mind-set has been commonly reported in those who have committed sex-crimes (http://www.link-zone.net/sentinellinks/athepowerofsex.html) as they believe that men/women/children are simply sexual objects.

First of all, sex and love are two separate things, and the two do not have to go together. It might be desirable, but not essential for them to be together. Why should they?

Because why would you want to have sex without being emotionally involved with the person you are having sex with?

For the record, I didn't say that love and sex had to go together. I said that there appears to be an attempt to remove the emotional aspect from sex.

This is something which reminds me of something people who have been sexually abused do - they don't get emotionally involved when they have sex due to the abuse they have suffered (disassociation). Further still, some people who have been abused then go through what psychologists call 'Traumatic Re-enactment' where the abused person seeks (subconsciously in most cases) to recreate the violation. For example, if a person was abused by two people they may (mostly subconsciously) seek out similar sexual encounters of a similar nature - they may become a porn feature famed for having sex with two other people.

Secondly, what you find normal and desirable is not the same for anyone else?

I never said that I expect people to share my view of normal and desirable. I am simply expressing my views and opinions.

Do you want sexual activity to be restricted and policed. E.g. people into asphyxiation to be prosecuted????? :confused:

Again, I haven't stated that I want sex to be policed. What I said is that some sexual acts would not occur under normal circumstances i.e. a person having sex would not normally be asphyxiated in order to achieve an automatic orgasm unless they had prior knowledge of this bodily function, therefore, the act of auto-erotic asphyxiation is one that has been perverted as it would not occur in the course of a normal sexual encounter.

Trivia - It was noted that when men were hanged they frequently got erections which remained after death occurred. Doctors then used manual asphyxiation to treat erectile dysfunction based on this observation and more recently it has been developed to incorporate the lack of oxygen to the brain to heighten the sensations of orgasm.

And for the record, I am not religious, I don't have any hang-ups about being naked or having 'normal' sex; I just have a good sense of what is good and what isn't and the sex industry definitely isn't good.

Once again, just your opinion. And a minority one.

It is my opinion and I can neither vouch for your bold assertion that it is in a minority, nor confirm that it is in the majority. Perhaps you would like to share with me what you think is good about the sex industry?

[QUOTE=tangy lemon;175788]
I would assume that many males in the UK do have a problem with prostitution and while a minority of men may think it is acceptable (due to conditioning over the years), this is part of a wider culture of hedonistic behaviour in the UK (i.e. the excess alcohol culture and its associated problems - violence, promiscuous, unprotected sex etc).

Do you want to stop people from living their lives the way they want to and force them to conform to your moral stance? There's a word for that. It's called fundamentalism.

I haven't said anything about stopping people living their lives how they wish to nor have I said I want them to conform to my moral stance. The issue is that a group of people in the UK seek to legitimise the sex 'industry' and are expressing their opinion about it, and rightly so. It is what they believe in and they have every right to do that.

I also have a right to voice my opinion in opposition of them and I will continue to do so as I have my own view on the subject, such is the way of the world.

Fundamentalism? Not guilty.

If you don't like porn, and think it's 'nasty', 'degrading' or whatever, why should this apply to other people?????? :confused:

I don't force my view on anyone. I may tell them what I think but I wouldn't expect them to adopt my views just because I expressed them, nor do I coerce them into accepting my view.

The reality is that the person prostituting themselves has had to make a decision at some point to sell themselves in this way.

Yes, so it's their choice. Liberty, remember?

If their choice has been made of their own free will, independent of any external manipulation, such as subliminal marketing or threats of violence, then that is truly their choice and I respect that choice. I don't agree with the chosen profession but if that is what they want to do, so be it, but do it somewhere where it is acceptable and legal (I know prostitution is legal, by the way, but the methods prostitutes employ to gain business aren't).

My view is that the person had to make the choice to prostitute themselves out of an act of desperation (for money for drugs or to live on), to get a kick out of (probably a minority), or they didn't have a choice and has been forced into doing it for some reason.

I'm sorry, but this is naive and incorrect. Read Jonathan Aitken's account of his time working as a gigolo on the French riviera, or any one of many books written by women, containing their memoirs of being a prostitute, and you will discover that desperation and force are NOT the only reasons people become prostitutes. Yes, these reasons do exist, and they are problems, but they can be tackled separately.

There are 3 main reasons which I state, one of which is they get a kick out of it, they enjoy it in other words. Ultimately, the reasons why one may become a prostitute can be categorised into one of these 3, unless you want to prove otherwise?

I'm pretty sure any person of reasonable intelligence would realise that the service may extend to exhibitionist masturbation. Funnily enough, some people dont have a problem with that either. Do you want to lock them up?

My point here is that the ad is potentially misleading and how many people will be lured in to the job and after a while be told there is extra money available if you are willing to do other things? The advert should not be misleading and if, as you state, people with reasonable intelligence would realise this fact, then why did the DWP allow this ad to be displayed as it would be illegal to run the advert as it would be effectively soliciting with the purpose of prostitution.

If companies like this are allowed to advertise with the Job Centre, and this could set a precedent, what happens to those who are on benefits who refuse the job? They would get penalised under the existing rules and could have their benefit stopped, which is unfair and unacceptable.

This is just supposition.

The supposition is based on the current practices of the DWP. If someone refuses a job when they are able to perform the duties required of the role they can have their benefit stopped. The DWP may introduce an exception to this rule but what if the sex industry became legal and was a major source of employment? This exception wouldn't last long in my opinion.

If you want only to make love, then that's your choice. But don't knock fucking til you've tried it. ;)

Who said I haven't fucked? I have done and although the physical experience is ok (nothing like emotionally involved sex, for me at least) it is nothing compared to loving sex. As I got wiser to the ways of the world, I didn't involve myself in this type of sex any more.

Lucky you. I was brought up in a family that had strong values of freedom and personal choice and responsibility. Why should the responsibility of my life be controlled by puritans like yourself?

I don't want responsibility of your or anyone else's life. My family believe in freedom of choice and responsibility too.

To counter your argument, why should my life be controlled by people wishing to impose the sex industry on my life?

FYI - a Puritan is someone who believes in the supreme authority of God and therefore adhere to the purity of the teachings of God as expressed in the Christian Bible. As I am neither religious nor believe in Christian doctrine I cannot be considered a 'Puritan'.

Great debate this. :)

I agree. But then again all debates are great as they are the synthesis for change.

Tangy

tangy lemon

31-10-2007, 08:02 PM

adimon

31-10-2007, 11:18 PM

I cannot say if my opinion is in the minority or not as I cannot vouch for everyone else on earth and I dismiss your assertion that my opinion is in the minority, as unless you can offer supporting evidence to back your claim then this is nothing more than opinion too, which you are entitled to express too.

I will, when I have the time, find some studies which show that prostitution is a normal part of life in virtually every civilisation. The fact that it is known as the world's oldest profession might give an indication that it's here to stay.

As for the claim about the link between prostitution and rape, I think it is quite preposterous that any study would draw this conclusion because it is a well known fact that in rape cases the vast majority of those who have been raped were raped by someone known to them

What I intended with my original reference was that studies have shown that the incidence of rape is higher in places where prostitution is illegal, or unavailable, and that whilst, as you say, most rapes are performed by someone known to the victim, the rise in incidence referred to would be predominantly among the cases where the woman is raped by a stranger. Again, I will return to this thread with the appropriate information.

I don't know how you draw the conclusions you have about my opinion being influenced by Christianity because it certainly is not.

I understand that you may have formed your opinion on sex without direct influence from Christianity, but in societies untouched by organised religion, attitudes to sexuality are more relaxed, natural, and promote greater freedoms. Have you read about the Muria?

My opinion may seem old-fashioned to you if you mean old-fashioned in terms of the historical general moral consensus on the subject of sex but I assure you that those people had more moral fibre than many people today. They may have had a lot of extreme ideas and hang-ups about sex but overall they had a sound approach to promoting a healthier sex life than that apparently been promoted and justified today.

This is using generalisation again, I'm afraid.

I have met several people who have been in the sex trade and every one of them had the same personality trait of insecurity and promiscuity. That isn't to say that all prostitutes have these traits, or at least do not display them publicly. My generalisation comes from reading about the motivation behind human behaviours and other media. I don't have any links for these sources but I am sure I could locate some to support my opinion.

I could locate many sources to back up my opinion on these traits too, but I think this is a fringe issue to the subject, and we should concentrate on the legislation argument.

Therefore, if the sex industry did not exist, the financial reward for these sex traffickers would not exist thus taking away the incentive to do the despicable things they do.

And if brothels were legal, and had greater regulation, as in Australia, then the number of workers suffering exploitation or abuse would be a lot lower, since they would also have police protection. There are many sources of information which show the Australian industry to be a good example of legalisation having positive effects on cities.

If you send me some links to the documents in question I will gladly read them. However, knowing how Governments have operated historically (as is well documented), I would suspect the legislation is not worth the white paper it is written on (pun intended). Governments, like any business, rely on marketing their ideas to the public in order to gain support for their policies (or sell products and services in the case of businesses).

The documents are all available to the public, and there are far too many for me to link to individually. Start with www.open.gov.uk and start having a look for the information you need.

I'm afraid I completely disagree with the emboldened sentence above. The majority of legislation in the UK is passed without public knowledge, beyond lobby groups and pressure organisations. This iself is not desirable IMHO and there are many changes I would like to see to our parliamentary system, but that's another topic really. I think I will be starting a thread on the political systems of both UK and US fairly soon. I suggest you write to your MP to see what his/her view on the issue is. Well done for setting up your petition though.

The morality of the country would decline if brothels were legalised because it would legitimising an industry that is against the boundaries of public decency. The sex industry is something that should never be given credibility or legitimacy because it is based on exploitation, although many people do not see it that way due to being conditioned otherwise.

I'm not sure what to say to this without us going backwards and forwards on the issue. I think we will have to agree to disagree really. I really believe that public decency does not enter into what is a private experience based on choice. You don't have to watch webcam shows or have sex with prostitutes, but I think it's wrong to prohibit this, because I also believe that the sex industry is not as exploitative as you suggest, and theat much of the exploitation that does occur would be eradicated by the legalisation of brothels, and the regulation of all of the sex-industry, including webcam shows and peep shows, which you suggest may have some workers there by force currently.

I wish you all the best with your campaigning, but I really don't think you will be able to affect the changes you want. Is it not a better thing for people to be protected from violence and exploitation by legalisation and regulation?

Can you imagine living next door to a brothel?

I was resident in a hotel in Amsterdam many years ago which was used by prostitutes, and had to share a bathroom with some of them. They were very pleasant, and I had absolutely no problems living with them at all.

Where I live now, the walls between my apartment and the next are fairly thin and I hear my neighbours having sex all the time. This is normal, and I wouldn't care one bit if there was money swapping hands.

How about families living next door to brothels?

How about kids hearing their parents having sex? How about kids hearing their neighbours having sex? Sex is not evil and hearing it will not harm a child unless there is some sort of abuse taking place.

I agree that people should be safe at work but if someone places them-self in a dangerous situation that is their choice. I don't see prostitution as a legitimate source of employment so I cannot condone having a brothel to keep prostitutes safe. Soldiers goes to war knowing they might get killed, prostitutes pick up clients knowing the risks involved and while I do not condone any person harming another, if you deliberately place yourself in a risky situation then you must accept the consequences of your actions.

I think this highlights a contradiction in your approach to personal freedoms. On the one hand you say it's choice if a prostitute picks up a client she risks harm and shouldn't be offered any protection, but on the other hand you're saying that people shouldn't have the choice to visit a prostitute if they choose, because you think there is an impact on society?? :confused:

I am glad that you have such respect for your mother's choice and I admire your stance for it. I don't find the idea of my mother being sexual offensive at all and I KNOW she has definitely had sex at least twice (I have a sister).

So to turn the question back to you now that I've answered it - how would you feel if your mother was a prostitute?

If you worry about the effect it would have on your personal life, imagine what effect it would have on others who take a less liberal view on prostitution.

I'm not sure what you mean by this at all. If a married woman wants to work as a prostitute, and her husband is less liberal in his views and doesn't like it one iota, then as a couple they have the responsibility to decide whether to stay together or resolve the issue any way they choose.

In the theoretial situation you presented me with, I would principally be concerned about whether our sex life would be affected. If I felt that the quality of the sex was decreasing, then that's an issue we could as a couple address. If I loved my wife and she loved me though, I think a solution could be found.

Again, I admire your stance for sticking to your principles by not having an issue with your wife being a prostitute. I would have an issue with this as I believe that all relationships should be monogamous, unless explicitly agreed and informed consent given between those involved, and I would consider this to be unfaithful. Just my opinion and I know many won't agree but I say it nonetheless, old-fashioned or not.

I admire your stance on what you choose to do with your partner as well, but you should have no say on what I do with my partner, and neither should anyone. Did you know that until relatively recently it was illegal to have anal sex with your wife? Where is the sense in this law? If I want to have anal sex with my wife or partner, what business is it of anyone elses? Consequently, If I want to have an open relationship with my wife, what business is it of anyone else's at all?

Your point here appears to say that working in the sex industry is undesirable over other careers. Could you clarify your point and inform me what careers you would prefer she chose?

I'm not going to extend this theoretical situation any further and offer you suggestions as to how or what I would advise my imaginary daughter about her career - it would depend on her abilities, the things she liked etc. Generally speaking though, I think people would agree that a career as an architect might be slightly more challenging, rewarding etc.. than a job working for Dynarod. My point was that is my daughter was 18 and wanted to work as a prostitute then I'd encourage her not to, but respect her wishes if that's what she really wanted. I don't think it's undesirable in general to work in the sex industry, because I am not making a generalisation. It's less desirable to me than my career, but I have a friend who performs in amateur porn films and he really enjoys it. I personally wouldn't want to do that kind of work because I wouldn't be able to choose who to have sex with. But that's the choice we have in life.

The point I am making here is the increasing trend of men and women who view their preferred choice of sexual partner, other men or women, as nothing more than an object of desire, sex, lust, etc. To illustrate the point, how many times have you watched a porn film while engaging or leading to a sexual act and thought about what that person is actually like in 'real' life? Have you ever considered what they hope for in life? What they fear?

Their life and career is their choice, and doesn't affect me at all. Since I know both male and female porn 'actors' I know a little about their lives. I don't waste time wondering what Taylor Rain thinks about the Repulican Party, no.

Hopes and fears aren't something I think about a lot in my own life, as I concentrate on the present tbh.

The point is that the media and a group of people in public believe that both males and females, especially those who fit the stereotypical 'sex-god or goddess' look that is fed to us by the media, are primarily physical sexual objects.

I have no interest in celebrity culture at all, tbh, and am deeply concerned by those that are. For me there is no stereotype influence in my life at all. I eschew watching television and would encourage others to do the same. I don't think about celebrities at all, let alone view them as physical objects. Yet again this is choice.

Because why would you want to have sex without being emotionally involved with the person you are having sex with?

Because it is enjoyable. I don't have to be emotionally involved with someone to play them at tennis. Sometimes sex can be like a satisfying, sweaty game of tennis, only you get to cum at the end.

For the record, I didn't say that love and sex had to go together. I said that there appears to be an attempt to remove the emotional aspect from sex.

You view permissive society as an agenda, that's your opinion. I see it as a manifestation of people's desires. I think cavemen probably had anal sex, and oral sex, and asphyxiated each other, and bartered for sexual favours (prostitution) and had multiple partners sometimes, etc and that these are not a product of the modern world, and porn does not come first, then people imitate it. If I'm wrong, and their is an agenda, then there is still choice, and I can choose to do what I wish with whom I wish. No harm to anyone else. I understand that you are in favour of monogamy and vanilla sex, that's your choice, but things like marriage and puritanism are the product of religion and are not outdated, that's why I referenced your view against Christianity. THe Christians want to use marriage to regulate sexual intercourse. Their view is that there's something somehow magic about only having one partner. I disagree with that and am glad I have the freedom to do so, rather than being forced. Whenever I meet the person I will settle down with, I would feel happier that we have come to one another with experience of life rather than being sheltered from it.

Again, I haven't stated that I want sex to be policed. What I said is that some sexual acts would not occur under normal circumstances i.e. a person having sex would not normally be asphyxiated in order to achieve an automatic orgasm unless they had prior knowledge of this bodily function, therefore, the act of auto-erotic asphyxiation is one that has been perverted as it would not occur in the course of a normal sexual encounter.

Who defines normal tangylemon? Why do you give a shit whether people are asphyxiating themselves or their partners behind closed doors?

Trivia - It was noted that when men were hanged they frequently got erections which remained after death occurred. Doctors then used manual asphyxiation to treat erectile dysfunction based on this observation and more recently it has been developed to incorporate the lack of oxygen to the brain to heighten the sensations of orgasm.

What makes you think it's a recent development. Globalisation and the rise of the media has made practises that were relatively unknown household knowledge, but that doesn't mean to say that it was unpractised. Few women in the 1960s owned dildos, but archaeologists have found that sextoys existed a long time before JC turned up and made us all afraid of ur bodies. The subject of taboo is something I've spent a long time looking into, and there are very, very few taboos which make any sense at all.

It is my opinion and I can neither vouch for your bold assertion that it is in a minority, nor confirm that it is in the majority. Perhaps you would like to share with me what you think is good about the sex industry?

I think it's good that people can exercise their free choice about what they do. Prostitutes exist to pleasure others. People sometimes desire pleasure. Some prostitutes derive some pleasure from some of their customers. (Not all, clearly)

I haven't said anything about stopping people living their lives how they wish to nor have I said I want them to conform to my moral stance. The issue is that a group of people in the UK seek to legitimise the sex 'industry' and are expressing their opinion about it, and rightly so. It is what they believe in and they have every right to do that.

I also have a right to voice my opinion in opposition of them and I will continue to do so as I have my own view on the subject, such is the way of the world.

Please feel free to continue to express your opinions. I'm fairly certain that personal choice will prevail, however, and these practises that you find so abhorrent will continue, and will eventually be regulated, and made safer for all concerned.

My point here is that the ad is potentially misleading and how many people will be lured in to the job and after a while be told there is extra money available if you are willing to do other things?

Then they have a choice whether to stay or not. Again, if properly regulated, all sex workers would be protected by emlpoyment law. If you're a secretary and your boss says he'll give you a payrise/promotion in return for a blowjob then you have a choice. You can fulfil him, deny him and suffer the consequences, or take his ass to court and try your luck there.

The advert should not be misleading and if, as you state, people with reasonable intelligence would realise this fact, then why did the DWP allow this ad to be displayed as it would be illegal to run the advert as it would be effectively soliciting with the purpose of prostitution.

Because it's NOT prostitution or soliciting. I admire the main drive of your side of the debate, and believe you to use great logic (albeit from a different moral standpoint) and then here you seem to me to be struggling to equate webcam performers with prostitutes. It's really not the same thing. Why not ask the earlier poster on this thread - who mentioned he had done this kind of work - whether he was a prostitute.

The supposition is based on the current practices of the DWP. If someone refuses a job when they are able to perform the duties required of the role they can have their benefit stopped. The DWP may introduce an exception to this rule but what if the sex industry became legal and was a major source of employment? This exception wouldn't last long in my opinion.

I put of making this point earlier on because I wanted to see where you would go with the morality/personal freedom debate, but the fact is, there are no shortage of non-sex industry jos that one can get from the job centre. I think very few people would be in a situation where they are forced to take the webcam job. I've spent a LOT of time in job centres and there are 1000s of jobs one can get.

Who said I haven't fucked? I have done and although the physical experience is ok (nothing like emotionally involved sex, for me at least) it is nothing compared to loving sex. As I got wiser to the ways of the world, I didn't involve myself in this type of sex any more.

I'm glad you're happier now.

To counter your argument, why should my life be controlled by people wishing to impose the sex industry on my life?

It isn't, and won't be. Personal choice. You don't have to work as a prostitute or visit one. If you want you never even have to see one.

FYI - a Puritan is someone who believes in the supreme authority of God and therefore adhere to the purity of the teachings of God as expressed in the Christian Bible. As I am neither religious nor believe in Christian doctrine I cannot be considered a 'Puritan'.

Yes, but puritanism has an extended meaning beyond the religous one, which describes wanting to control/outlaw certain behaviours.

I agree. But then again all debates are great as they are the synthesis for change.

Thanks. Your input is greatly appreciated. :)

lizzy

01-11-2007, 04:06 AM

Hi all, I felt so compelled by this subject that I have set up a petition online to show the strength of feeling of UK citizens (the petition is for UK residents only, not my rules but those of our supposedly wise Government) who oppose legitimising the sex industry.

The petition can be found at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sex-Work-Ads/

Thanks

Tangy
Well Done Tangy with the petition.
I gave up with Adimon , he just does'nt get that these activities and beliefs undermine the social, moral and ethical fibre of community, he's not in anyway aware of his own negative condiitioning.
So good for you staying with it. I just don't have your patience.
love,lizzy

nuit

01-11-2007, 02:19 PM

For me it is very simple. The State is out to destroy us, beat down our physical, moral, ethical or spiritual selves. In that regard to promote stripping as a career makes perfect sense
Please don't condone this aspect of our enslavement as 'freedom of choice" , that is a total crap.
I love guys but when you talk like this you become a bunch of 'dogs'
love lizzy

bollox there is a choice you have a choice whether you want to strip or not, and btw protitution is not illegal, however living of immoral earnings is.
And before anyone else comes out with it, yes i do take my clothes of for a living, but i am not a stripper, i also am managing director of a very successful dj and artistes management company, so before the bitch calling comes in for what I CHOOSE to do as a career, it was and always will be MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE to decide

nuit

01-11-2007, 02:23 PM

adimon

01-11-2007, 03:16 PM

Wow I've never been called a dog before! :p

nuit

01-11-2007, 03:18 PM

Wow I've never been called a dog before! :p

oh i bet you i will be now :D

do i care? after all these years no not at all. i know where i have been and where i am going too :)

adimon

01-11-2007, 03:36 PM

oh i bet you i will be now :D

do i care? after all these years no not at all. i know where i have been and where i am going too :)

If you're a dog...and I'm a dog...that can only mean one thing, right? ;)

nuit

01-11-2007, 03:36 PM

that we are barking?

adimon

01-11-2007, 03:49 PM

that we are barking?

LOL. That we are, as they say where I come from....da mutts nutts :D

on the road

01-11-2007, 05:23 PM

bucket of water at the ready to seperate the dogs ;)

it started on the david icke forum.....

just kiddin peeps