YourSlave

Feminist On Twitter Calls For Sex Workers To Be Violently Raped

34 posts in this topic

Another of the true clueless..x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't read it as an invitation to rape. To me it reads as though she wishes that pimps and punters of coerced women could be on the receiving end to get a taste of their own medicine.

It's a bit of a rant, so it's easy to misinterpret.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't read it as an invitation to rape. To me it reads as though she wishes that pimps and punters of coerced women could be on the receiving end to get a taste of their own medicine.

It's a bit of a rant, so it's easy to misinterpret.

That's how I interpreted it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She says "pimp lobby", then sarcastically corrects it to "sex workers".

 

The way I interpret it is she is including everyone who advocates decrim, sex workers included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She says "pimp lobby", then sarcastically corrects it to "sex workers".

 

The way I interpret it is she is including everyone who advocates decrim, sex workers included.

I read it as replacing "pimp" with "sex worker" i.e. sex workers' lobby instead of pimp lobby, but I know what you mean. The importance of paying attention to one's grammar, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as replacing "pimp" with "sex worker" i.e. sex workers' lobby instead of pimp lobby, but I know what you mean. The importance of paying attention to one's grammar, eh?

Well, she says "without consent" which is rape. Punting is by consent /at discretion. A SP can refuse any clients anything. If she refuses sex the punter will want a refund, not to rape the SP.

Fundamentalists harboring the murky desires they attribute to their enemies. Who knew?

Edited by TheCrow7
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as replacing "pimp" with "sex worker" i.e. sex workers' lobby instead of pimp lobby, but I know what you mean. The importance of paying attention to one's grammar, eh?

 

Exactly. She has written carelessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, she says "without consent" which is rape. Punting is by consent /at discretion. A SP can refuse any clients anything. If she refuses sex the punter will want a refund, not to rape the SP.

Fundamentalists harboring the murky desires they attribute to their enemies. Who knew?

 

So true. I've gone through many a Graundiad thread on some prostitution article or another, and it's remarkable how many of the anti's just cannot conceive of the meeting between punter and pro as being anything other than some joyless, hate-filled, mutually contemptuous encounter. Speaks volumes for their sex lives.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's getting a kicking regardless, so I'm sure if it was an error she will enlighten us all shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless who exactly she was referring to she deserves some heat for her disgusting diatribe. Rape is a horrific crime and I'm sure noone needs to see the sort of vile she had written.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a tv interview with Sarah Benson, head of an irish government-funded NGO that tries to identify and support those in prostitution involuntarily, and campaigns for purchasers of sexy time to be outlawed.

 

In it she was asked about how sex workers advocate shared premises with co-workers ( aka brothels ) as making their work safer. She replied that prostitution is dangerous, that it is inherently violent, and that is still the case if prostitutes work cooperatively. I wish the interviewer had pressed on with his questioning by asking something like: "So prostitution is 100% violent, and making it safer with say locally licensed and inspected brothels, still leaves it as a 100% violent occupation?" as that was the gist.

 

Some people just can't compute the nuances of prostitution. It's a job only 1 in 300 adult women do apparently, and though the numbers who would be capable of doing it are a fair bit higher, it's skilled work and it's not a case of everyone being able to do it. And a great many just can't imagine doing it, or that there are gradations in what makes it safe.

 

The woman in the OP is one such woman. It's all about how she imagines it to be. She's a bit of a cock frankly.

Edited by bongo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a tv interview with Sarah Benson, head of an irish government-funded NGO that tries to identify and support those in prostitution involuntarily, and campaigns for purchasers of sexy time to be outlawed.

 

In it she was asked about how sex workers advocate shared premises with co-workers ( aka brothels ) as making their work safer. She replied that prostitution is dangerous, that it is inherently violent, and that is still the case if prostitutes work cooperatively. I wish the interviewer had pressed on with his questioning by asking something like: "So prostitution is 100% violent, and making it safer with say locally licensed and inspected brothels, still leaves it as a 100% violent occupation?" as that was the gist.

 

Some people just can't compute the nuances of prostitution. It's a job only 1 in 300 adult women do apparently, and though the numbers who would be capable of doing it are a fair bit higher, it's skilled work and it's not a case of everyone being able to do it. And a great many just can't imagine doing it, or that there are gradations in what makes it safe.

 

The woman in the OP is one such woman. It's all about how she imagines it to be. She's a bit of a cock frankly.

 

In Benson's case it has nothing to do with computing the nuances, she is protecting a £100k salary and that's before we start with the hundreds of thousands Ruhama get 

in government funding every year. You could present her with any evidence you wish and she will still claim sex work to be a dark and inherently violent occupation, it pays her 

to do so. I've met her and she is a cold, calculating woman without any empathy or hint of kindness whatsoever, let alone for sex workers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't read it as an invitation to rape. To me it reads as though she wishes that pimps and punters of coerced women could be on the receiving end to get a taste of their own medicine.

It's a bit of a rant, so it's easy to misinterpret.

 

 

That's how I interpreted it too.

I read it the same,minus the part about coerced women,as according to her rant,no woman can chose sex work and thus its all pimps and punters.She also seems to be continuing with the popular myth that all advocates of sex work,no matter what they "claim" to be,are either pimps or paid by pimps.

Misinformed and a tad over the top,but calling for everybody to be raped she isnt.It's a how would you like it if the positions were reversed type statement.Put a tad childishly,but still.

I personally feel that its best to be careful not to fall into the same lazy argumentative style  as the antis, with misinterpreting statements in a way which could be construed as pushing a certain agenda and sticking to what is actually written.Think we've all seen sites with stuff like,"this stupid ****** is calling for all punters to be ******** with much outrage,and if you actually bother to read the whole post it actually says nothing of the sort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel that its best to be careful not to fall into the same lazy argumentative style as the antis, with misinterpreting statements in a way which could be construed as pushing a certain agenda and sticking to what is actually written.

This is what is actually written:

"FUCK THE LOT OF YOU.

Repetitively. Daily. Without consent. Painfully. Violently."

I'm not taking this out of context. The context can be seen from the OP's screengrab -She's arguing for punishment rape as a way to teach a lesson.

Edited by TheCrow7
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Benson's case it has nothing to do with computing the nuances, she is protecting a £100k salary and that's before we start with the hundreds of thousands Ruhama get 

in government funding every year. You could present her with any evidence you wish and she will still claim sex work to be a dark and inherently violent occupation, it pays her 

to do so. I've met her and she is a cold, calculating woman without any empathy or hint of kindness whatsoever, let alone for sex workers. 

Thanks for a different view LL.

I notice Benson has a BA and MPhil (Trinity) to her credit, so clearly it isn't stupidity or idleness that makes some of the abolitionists the way they are.

 

I'll have to defer to you as you've met her that it is income protection and lack of empathy that defines her.

Thanks for the upper though. You very kind person.

 

Footnote: I notice in their 2012 report that Ruhama's annual income is down as 602k Euro, so the CEO salary will be taking a big cut of that, and they are currently claiming they have helped one person into employment. In financial terms they are not quite as big as One25 in Bristol, with a 2012/13 income of 609k GBP, although One25 don't campaign to change the law just to support people working as prostitutes mainly due to drug and similar dependency reasons, and they claim to have helped 9 people into employment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is actually written:

"FUCK THE LOT OF YOU.

Repetitively. Daily. Without consent. Painfully. Violently."

I'm not taking this out of context. The context can be seen from the OP's screengrab -She's arguing for punishment rape as a way to teach a lesson.

Sorry,i'm totally missing the part where she says i wish you would all be,or you should all get etc.

I personally prefer not to sink to her level and would rather discuss rationally rather than let emotion cloud my mind.As soon as you do,you have lost the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,i'm totally missing the part where she says i wish you would all be,or you should all get etc.

What are you talking about?

By "FUCK" she must mean sex literally, because the next thing she writes is "Repetitively. Daily. Without consent. Painfully. Violently." If there is something else this could mean apart from rape, sex without consent, what is it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?

By "FUCK" she must mean sex literally, because the next thing she writes is "Repetitively. Daily. Without consent. Painfully. Violently." If there is something else this could mean apart from rape, sex without consent, what is it?

She says "Fuck The Lot Of You".Now when someone uses that phrase do they normally mean they literally want to do that or wish for it to happen.When you're arguing and you say,"fuck you",do you literally mean you wish to have intercourse with them?Probably not.

We could go round in circles like this forever.My main point is that why try to sensationalise something.That seems to be the way the antis work.Twist and sensationalise to grab attention.The only way to counter that is to remain rational.

Heres a fun little vid on fuck 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She says "Fuck The Lot Of You".Now when someone uses that phrase do they normally mean they literally want to do that or wish for it to happen.When you're arguing and you say,"fuck you",do you literally mean you wish to have intercourse with them?Probably not.

We could go round in circles like this forever.My main point is that why try to sensationalise something.That seems to be the way the antis work.Twist and sensationalise to grab attention.The only way to counter that is to remain rational.

Heres a fun little vid on fuck  http://youtu.be/uSEXgQ58AoM

Well it's obvious from her last line as well:

"See what prostitution is like for yourselves, you inhuman assholes."

She might think punishment rape to teach a lesson is justified, if she thinks prostitution itself is rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have an on going discussion in Denmark about the same topic...Facts are often twisted....... ( Was it Churchill who stated:"I only believe in statistics made by me" or something similar?? ) Well

here is  a link to a danish researcher. He is quite extraordinary. The main text is in Dansih, but there is an English homepage too...

 

http://rucforsk.ruc.dk/site/da/persons/christian-groes(bbbaa3eb-2793-440f-9e16-cbb64f03946c)/publications.html

 

Pls enjoy..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she didn't intend sex workers to be included in her rape threat/wish/whatever I'm curious why she refers to sex workers as "pimp lobby". I've seen this a lot on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she didn't intend sex workers to be included in her rape threat/wish/whatever I'm curious why she refers to sex workers as "pimp lobby". I've seen this a lot on Twitter.

I've seen the same.As far as i can see its for two reason.The first reason i've seen is that amongst the members of the sex workers union is one who either runs an agency or has something to do with running an agency,and as they're a paid up member certain parties have said that proves that they are funded by pimps to lok after their interests.Kind of ironic that when you look at one of the more vocal antis(on tv the other day)her anti project was set up by her and a convicted pimp.

The other reason is due to opposing criminalisation of the punter and for changes in the law to make the job safer for those involved,ie allowing ladies to work together for safety which many antis refer to as giving a pimps charter saying that it would things easier for pimps to profit.Absolute cobblers i know,in fact,the legislation criminalising the punter will do far more towards that aim.When you look at the last big trafficking bust.That occured due to help from a punter.would that punter still have assisted if he thought he could also be arrested.We'd all love to say yes,but the reality is they may have too much to lose.

sorry,i've rambled off topic.The short is,by supporting what the antis see as a pimps charter,coupled with their belief that no one who works as a prostitute can have any say in the matter means that only those with a vested interest would ever back such a thing,so pimps and perverts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all nutters. The religious loons and the rad fems.

 

People who are obsessed with, and/or have a desire to control or regulate the sexual choices/behaviour of others, are sociopathic by definition. Possibly borderline psychopathic.

1 person likes this

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