Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
raylondoner

Britain's Happy Hookers

21 posts in this topic

Tonight at 9.00 pm on London Live.

 

Featuring a group of 20 year old girls turning to escorting.

 

Let's hope it's better than last night's football (yawns) ;)

 

 

(hate it when you can make changes to error in message but cannot change obvious error in heading - please note this was a typo and I'm not illigitimate!) :unsure:

Edited by raylondoner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(hate it when you can make changes to error in message but cannot change obvious error in heading - please note this was a typo and I'm not illigitimate!) :unsure:

Sorted for you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual pointless guff. So hooking can be dangerous and depressing? Who'd have thunk it.... And giving McCoy the oxygen of publicity makes it obvious there's really nothing new to say.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that this had previously been on BBC3, definitely seen it somewhere else before this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid girl that presenter is. Feminist Julie Bindel told her that there is loads of evidence that prostitution is psychologically damaging for both street girls and escorts. Instead of asking Bindel what this evidence is, and then checking it herself, she just believed her. There is no evidence. The best the feminists can come up with is the 'research' of Melissa Farley who worked in America with drug addicts. This presenter is supposed to have gone to university, so you think she would know to check what people tell her.

 

Bindel said that men like me have to be educated. I know the facts, it's Bindel who appears not to know the facts. I think she does really, she just bluffs it out on camera time and time again. She wants prostitution banned, but doesn't say that. She says that men like me need to be re-educated, and that there has to be a sanction to support that, ie fines or imprisonment.

 

Then came Rebecca Mott. If her story is really true - and I have doubts about that - then it has nothing to do with prostitution. Her experiences would be more similar to the teenage girls of Rotherham. Except that the way she talks about her experiences is nothing like these coerced girls.

 

One last point. There's a feminist whose name I forget (I think it might have been Sheila Jeffreys) who like Bindel doesn't like transgender people. She's also commented on prostitution. She said on the radio recently that women don't want to go into a public toilet and see a male-to-female transgender person in there. My guess is that if a woman knew that someone was transgender - and half the time they wouldn't - they would prefer to have a transgender person conforming to feminine stereotypes than someone like Julie Bindel. In last nights show she looked more like a man than ever. The whole point of separate toilets for men and women is that someone is unlikely to be looking at you in a sexual way. So I think that a lot of women wouldn't want lesbians like Bindel in their toilets.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it and found it so boring: the same kind of information provided in documentaries in the last decades by some new journalist who thinks that reached an un-touched subject.  As usual, trying to dissect two extremes to a level that suited her, none reflecting the reality......... which is more in the middle.  

 

But what surprised me is that the girls threw away the discretion thinking they are going to get more customers?  I never understood this logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it and found it so boring: the same kind of information provided in documentaries in the last decades by some new journalist who thinks that reached an un-touched subject.  As usual, trying to dissect two extremes to a level that suited her, none reflecting the reality......... which is more in the middle.  

 

But what surprised me is that the girls threw away the discretion thinking they are going to get more customers?  I never understood this logic.

I don't think there is one reality. The Belle de Jour experience is one reality. Rebecca Mott's supposed experience is not reality at all. Her experience doesn't correspond with anything recognizable by people who know about the sex industry. Mott talks about violence and rape - "most of the men were very violent". She talked about being strangled,choked and suffocated. She said it was common for men to "knock me unconscious as a way of not paying" and says she was raped twice in a row. I don't believe this. I don't think that Mott is a fantasist, I think like Bindel she is politically motivated. They are both willing to tell untruths to further their cause.

 

The presenter said she was lucky to have a job where really bad things aren't going to happen to her. Estate agent Suzie Lamplugh was murdered by a client. The difference is that the estate agent industry were able to change their policies so that it never happened again. Sex workers aren't allowed to do that. Women aren't allowed to work together in a flat or house for safety. It's people like Bindel and Mott who stand in the way of the kind of changes that would mean sex workers are as safe as any other profession. Bindel gives the impression she wants to legalize it. She wants sex workers to be decriminalized, but that cannot make it safer for women if punters are criminalized. Women can't work in safely in flats or houses if every time a man comes to the door he gets arrested. So they'll have to indulge in risky behaviour to meet up with clients.

 

Having said that, I do think that there is something inherently risky about escorting compared to some other forms of prostitution. I think that women would be safer if they could work together from flats or houses. I have discussed this on the forum but it seems most escorts don't agree with me.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Having said that, I do think that there is something inherently risky about escorting compared to some other forms of prostitution. I think that women would be safer if they could work together from flats or houses. I have discussed this on the forum but it seems most escorts don't agree with me.

Can you please provide the link where "most escorts" was not agreeing with you, regarding the changing the legislation for two or more women working from the same premises?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thought of that lying creep McCoy turning up at a girl's door. How depressing. 

Edited by RLondon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't watched it yet but note that the London Live website gives the opportunity to post comments on the programme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the o/p and haven't watched it yet, not sure I will bother! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thought of that lying creep McCoy turning up at a girl's door. How depressing. 

 

Ha ha, true, she was not impressed either when he was driving her.  Which reminds me, I have to email him to remove my picture from his website he download it without my permission despite having a Legal Note there.  He must have been checking this website.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please provide the link where "most escorts" was not agreeing with you, regarding the changing the legislation for two or more women working from the same premises?

I started a thread What Do Escorts Appreciate? where I asked (a bit off-topic) if incall was safer. Someone replied incall isn't necessarily safer. I said If a woman is on her own in a flat or a house then I would imagine it would be equally as dangerous. What if it was legal for 2 or 3 women to work together? Would more WGs choose that because it would be a safer option? Do WGs choose to work in a brothel because working alone from a flat is too dangerous?

 

Nobody responded to that, apart from someone who just said 'yes', and I know from previous discussions that not many people seem to be interested. It just seems to me that opponents of sex work are always going to be able to say that sex work is dangerous because there is something inherently dangerous about an escort meeting a stranger somewhere or inviting him into her home. If there were safer alternatives, I don't see why sex workers wouldn't take them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started a thread What Do Escorts Appreciate? where I asked (a bit off-topic) if incall was safer. Someone replied incall isn't necessarily safer. I said If a woman is on her own in a flat or a house then I would imagine it would be equally as dangerous. What if it was legal for 2 or 3 women to work together? Would more WGs choose that because it would be a safer option? Do WGs choose to work in a brothel because working alone from a flat is too dangerous?

 

Nobody responded to that, apart from someone who just said 'yes', and I know from previous discussions that not many people seem to be interested. It just seems to me that opponents of sex work are always going to be able to say that sex work is dangerous because there is something inherently dangerous about an escort meeting a stranger somewhere or inviting him into her home. If there were safer alternatives, I don't see why sex workers wouldn't take them.

 

Genuine punters do care about WG safety, and as you observe, in principle 2 or more WGs working from the same premises should be safer. 

 

Why do many WGs do not do this at present?  I'd suggest several reasons.  Increased footfall, making it more likely to lead to objections from neighbours, landlords etc.  The legal status of 2 or more WGs working from the same premises, it is classified as a brothel and hence illegal.  I know this latter point does not put off all WGs.  For the more part-time WGs who often work from home it will be a question of discretion and overheads.  They do not need to share info with others, and they do not have the added cost of (sharing) the rent on a working premises.  There is also the hassle factor of obtaining the rental premises in the first place.  One of the group of WGs will have to be on the lease, they can hardly go collectively to the landlord and sign up as a co-operative.  That in itself can create an imbalance in the working relationships financially.  Finally it does happen that WGs sharing a flat fall out, that can be a very difficult situation to extract yourself from.

 

Visiting a good WG in her home can fell like a really intimate experience, and in that sense, for respectful punters visiting a good WG, the current arrangement can work very well, and imo less clinically than a multiple WG flat.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine punters do care about WG safety, and as you observe, in principle 2 or more WGs working from the same premises should be safer. 

 

Why do many WGs do not do this at present?  I'd suggest several reasons.  Increased footfall, making it more likely to lead to objections from neighbours, landlords etc.  The legal status of 2 or more WGs working from the same premises, it is classified as a brothel and hence illegal.  I know this latter point does not put off all WGs.  For the more part-time WGs who often work from home it will be a question of discretion and overheads.  They do not need to share info with others, and they do not have the added cost of (sharing) the rent on a working premises.  There is also the hassle factor of obtaining the rental premises in the first place.  One of the group of WGs will have to be on the lease, they can hardly go collectively to the landlord and sign up as a co-operative.  That in itself can create an imbalance in the working relationships financially.  Finally it does happen that WGs sharing a flat fall out, that can be a very difficult situation to extract yourself from.

 

Visiting a good WG in her home can fell like a really intimate experience, and in that sense, for respectful punters visiting a good WG, the current arrangement can work very well, and imo less clinically than a multiple WG flat.

 

yes i imagine a flat shared by 2 girls where one gets more business than the other will not be a happy place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visiting a good WG in her home can fell like a really intimate experience, and in that sense, for respectful punters visiting a good WG, the current arrangement can work very well, and imo less clinically than a multiple WG flat.

Indeed it can. A wg I'm currently visiting has an incall apartment on her main working days which aren't always suitable for me. Whenever I've asked about an advanced booking and it's on a none working day, she's seen me at her home.

The first time was a fabulous 2 hour booking on a Saturday evening which made for an incredibly intimate atmosphere. I'm not daft enough to think for a minute I'm the only punter who's visited her at home but it certainly isn't something she does on a regular basis and for that reason, as you say, it does feel more intimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally watched it tonight and found it quite entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest my opinion if McCoy was always on the worse side but as some of the ladies pointed out, he has campaigned for escorts rights in the past, he didn't have to do that, most guys wouldn't dream if doing that. He cant be all bad and has gone up in my estimations for that single reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i imagine a flat shared by 2 girls where one gets more business than the other will not be a happy place.

 

Ha ha, so true.  I remember some friends told me about this Kazach girl who was living at their place as she came to London to join in this industry.  She had to be thrown out soon after as she slapped and kicked another girl because she was so jealous of her being busy.  The Kazack girl later admitted she had a rage problem........ more like jealousy.  She would never slap a man who is giving her money.  

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0