Vin DaLoo

India Knight in the Sunday Times

17 posts in this topic

Following on from her interview of Dr Brooke Magnanti last week, India Knight gives a very rational appraisal of people's reactions to it, entitled Belle lays bare the myth that every hooker is a victim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done India Knight, she has put together a lot of disparate thoughts there well and deserves wide reading if only to give people here some responses to some of the other "ladies" of the press who have knee-jerked earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loved this comment under the india knight article

Mike S wrote:

I am trapped in a downward cycle of working as a self employed plumber.

This involves me having to contort my body in all sorts of unnatural positions and often getting covered in foul emissions until my clients are completely satisfied. I have to service hundreds of them each year.

I have to work in strange locations, at odd hours, in dangerous conditions for people I very often do not know.

I now I am being exploited by these disgusting people, but am having trouble find my nearest out reach worker.

Can anybody help me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loved this comment under the india knight article

Haha that is totally funny! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brilliant, as always.

I don't agree. I posted to the thread "Belle de Jour revealed as research scientist Dr Brooke Magnanti":

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=379978&postcount=89

And Ian Bell in today's Sunday Herald. :)

"To a greater number of enslaved, brutalised women it must have seemed as though the final degrading joke was being played. Reality had been discarded in the space of a headline...

The overwhelming truth of prostitution is grim beyond belief...

The sex industry is vile because the men who run it and use it would have it no other way...the chance to use helpless women on command and according to whim."

Another ignorant idiot! I'm tired of hearing people who don't know what they're talking about regurgitating the same old tired crap! Where do they get it from? Presumably from the likes of Harman, McShane, Poppy Project, Eaves, etc.

I'm willing to believe there are some trafficked, forced victims but nowhere near, not anywhere near, the numbers that are quoted. There are resources which could, and should, be put to work against the criminals who perpetrate such crimes but this persistent distortion of the facts muddies the waters and confuses the issue.

There needs to be much greater recognition of the fact that the majority of prostitutes are in it of their own free will and are not abused, pimped drug addicts. Fat chance of that while politicians, journalists and other professional liars keep spewing out the same old garbage! :P:) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above article:

As far as I know I've never met a sex worker...

He is lying!! He did, and with a whole knowledge of it! He made a bona fide booking and proceeded! (not with me).

Why he after mention it? Could simply write an article without putting this sentence, which is not true!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the above article:

As far as I know I've never met a sex worker...

He is lying!! He did, and with a whole knowledge of it! He made a bona fide booking and proceeded! (not with me).

Why he after mention it? Could simply write an article without putting this sentence, which is not true!!!

Does that mean that if a client lies about visiting a girl it is OK to out him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the above article:

As far as I know I've never met a sex worker...

He is lying!! He did, and with a whole knowledge of it! He made a bona fide booking and proceeded! (not with me).

Why he after mention it? Could simply write an article without putting this sentence, which is not true!!!

Does that mean that if a client lies about visiting a girl it is OK to out him?

An interesting question. But there's a bit more to it than that. If Xenia is right, then it isn't just "a client lying about visiting a girl".

It's a cynical journalist lying in order to claim the moral high ground for a (presumably well-paid) article in which he pontificates on other people's morality.

That sort of hypocritical behaviour almost certainly deserves to be outed. Especially in the context of a week in which the main news story relates to Fleet Street's attempts to out a young woman who had done nothing illegal and (IMHO) nothing immoral.

Of course if plain old Joe Punter, for simple self-protection and not with a motive of enriching himself, denies having seen a WG, that isn't an outing offence - even if Joe tuned out to be a celeb.

It's the difference between "in the public interest" and "the public might be interested". :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting question. But there's a bit more to it than that. If Xenia is right, then it isn't just "a client lying about visiting a girl".

It's a cynical journalist lying in order to claim the moral high ground for a (presumably well-paid) article in which he pontificates on other people's morality.

That sort of hypocritical behaviour almost certainly deserves to be outed. Especially in the context of a week in which the main news story relates to Fleet Street's attempts to out a young woman who had done nothing illegal and (IMHO) nothing immoral.

Of course if plain old Joe Punter, for simple self-protection and not with a motive of enriching himself, denies having seen a WG, that isn't an outing offence - even if Joe tuned out to be a celeb.

It's the difference between "in the public interest" and "the public might be interested". :P

Where would you draw the line?

There is, to me, an unpleasant inference that anyone with any reputation who has visited a prostitute is fair game to be outed if they say something that insiders don't like.

For all we know he may have been once or twice, decided that the visits confirmed his views and went no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where would you draw the line?

There is, to me, an unpleasant inference that anyone with any reputation who has visited a prostitute is fair game to be outed if they say something that insiders don't like.

For all we know he may have been once or twice, decided that the visits confirmed his views and went no more.

It would not stop the person being a lying bastard though would it?

My view is that "outing" is not an option here unless someone calls someone else in the circumastances a lying bastard and is then taken to court for Libel and needs a defence. In that case as has been shown by the Jeffrey Archer case, it is acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Archer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the above article:

As far as I know I've never met a sex worker...

He is lying!! He did, and with a whole knowledge of it! He made a bona fide booking and proceeded! (not with me).

Why he after mention it? Could simply write an article without putting this sentence, which is not true!!!

The thought did cross my mind that he might in fact have sampled the delights of personal services at some point! It's simply not credible that he wouldn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As far as I know I've never met a sex worker..."

Anyone with a bit of nouse will know they have met several sex workers.

Quite simply the odds are that within any individual's circle of acquaintance there will be at least one woman who has in some form or another has directly negotiated sex for payment.

Applying the knowledge from my punting times to the social circle of my under 35 years, I am damn certain that at least 2 of the women were WGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another ignorant idiot! I'm tired of hearing people who don't know what they're talking about regurgitating the same old tired crap! Where do they get it from? Presumably from the likes of Harman, McShane, Poppy Project, Eaves, etc.

Funny, I didn't read it as a particularly "anti" piece. True, he does turn his nose up at the idea, but also puts prostitution into a historical context, and the line about the myth of the happy hooker being sometimes true would never be uttered by the radical feminists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now