Ship of Fools: Homophobes

Thread: Homophobes Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005674

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I hope this is appropriate here, not DH, because this is not a discussion of homosexuality as such, but the attitude of some people.

This is largely coming from tweets by Vicky Beeching, who has said (in her own far sweeter way) how fucking sick she was of being compared to sickos who fuck animals and children. Because she has been open about being gay.

There was even one person who sent her a detailed explanation of how she was wrong, complete with a book list. Which is a very Christian form of Passive Aggression, it seems.

Now I should make my own position clear - I used to be an opponent of gays, I used to take the view that the bible condemned it. I would argue this relatively well but would never spew the sort of hatred that I see from others at gay people. I have changed my view, as I have learnt more, understood more.

So what is it that makes some people direct such hatred, such vileness at individuals? I can understand the arguments, just not the hatred. Maybe, to make it wider, why can we as Christians not just talk and agree to differ, rather than having to call people bestialists and paedophiles? Which is an appalling thing to call people - any people.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Is it something about the season of the year, that is bringing these weirdos out? A friend of mine is married to the man who penned this. From denigrating witches, on to gay people and then off into the wild blue yonder.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

God forbid the state should overstep its traditional role. Because Jesus defined that role, and the state oversteps it at the peril of its immortal soul.

What fucking bullshit.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

As far as considering LGBT folks to be bad and worthy of insult: maybe some of that is having a big mental box, labeled "Icky Sex Stuff", where people throw any sexual state of being, practice, crime, etc. with which they're uncomfortable--and/or have been taught is wrong/sinful/unnatural.

And *that* may come from thinking that all sins are equally bad (except, of course, the ones that the thinker theirself commits). I don't think that LGB relationships are bad. But *if* they were, and were between consenting adults*, they'd still be much less wrong than sexual abuse of kids, adults, and animals.

*Specified adults, because romantic/sexual relationships between teens can be fraught with all sorts of stuff--for kids of all preferences and genders. And sex between consenting adults is legal.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

The trouble is that people don't mind their own business. So what if you think someone is doing something immoral? As long as no one is getting hurt by it but themselves just shut up about it and keep it to yourself.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

There was even one person who sent her a detailed explanation of how she was wrong, complete with a book list. Which is a very Christian form of Passive Aggression, it seems.

Ah... The Book List. It's a favourite weapon of those who really love you but think they can help you get through this. It's not just what I think, you know, but just look at all these published authors who can explain it to you and help you understand. Bring back book burning. One of the nicest, most devout and loving Christian persons of my acquaintance did this to me when I was heavily involved in trying to get the church to understand that we are all just ordinary people, God's people, not fearful acronyms that will somehow destroy everyone else's marriages and tear the church apart. The scars are slow to heal.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

That, too.

ETA: Referring back to Nicolerm's post.

[ 30. March 2017, 02:57: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is it something about the season of the year, that is bringing these weirdos out? A friend of mine is married to the man who penned this. From denigrating witches, on to gay people and then off into the wild blue yonder.

My sympathies to your friend, for being married to that creep. He's a misogynist, who's afraid of losing power and position to women. I doubt he's ever known an actual Pagan or witch. I have close friends who are Pagan, including clergy. They're good people, and they do a lot of good in the world. There are probably some Pagans who do bad in the world, but so do a lot of Christians.

This creep needs to put down the funny mushrooms, LSD, ayahuasca, and his subscription to "Patriarchy R Us", and get to the emergency room. Preferably one with only female staff on duty, all wearing Pagan symbols and the LGBT rainbow flag.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

So what is it that makes some people direct such hatred, such vileness at individuals?

Some people will just hate. And hate is often a fear response. If they believe that homosexuality is a threat to the God-fearing world, this reaction is OTT, but not to surprising.

quote:

I can understand the arguments, just not the hatred. Maybe, to make it wider, why can we as Christians not just talk and agree to differ, rather than having to call people bestialists and paedophiles? Which is an appalling thing to call people - any people.

I think as more people accept homosexuality, this has become an intensifier, reasons as to why they cannot accept LGBT+ and why others should not.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A friend of mine is married to the man who penned this.

Heh-heh, he said dikes are effective.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Anything that challenges binary sex roles and male supremacy is going to arouse <nyuk nyuk> those people.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is it something about the season of the year, that is bringing these weirdos out? A friend of mine is married to the man who penned this. From denigrating witches, on to gay people and then off into the wild blue yonder.

There is a certain style in this type of diatribe that hints at madness, don't you find? Hard to define, but clearly there - a scientist who nobody listens to, but insists he is still right.

As to the icky-ness factor - well yes, sex is icky. I still find the idea of some types of sex brings out the ickiness radar. So I won't do that - but I won't have a problem with other people doing it. Because sex is icky. Maybe some of these people aren't getting any at all, and so have to condemn those who are.

But maybe it is just spring, when young mens hearts turn to telling other people what they shouldn't do because I don't like it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

This is classic:

quote:
The movement is perfectly content to use Christian notions like compassion for the poor, for example, when it allows the state to overstep its traditional role, and take on the charitable acts which once had been the purview of the Church, and, by making them entitlements rather than charitable, to decrease the charity and goodwill in the world.

There you have it folks. The reason for feeding the poor is not that the poor are fed, it's so that rich people can have the opportunity to be charitable.

What a sociopathic view.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The trouble is that people don't mind their own business. So what if you think someone is doing something immoral? As long as no one is getting hurt by it but themselves just shut up about it and keep it to yourself.

How can it be immoral if no-one gets hurt by it 🤔

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is classic:

quote:
The movement is perfectly content to use Christian notions like compassion for the poor, for example, when it allows the state to overstep its traditional role, and take on the charitable acts which once had been the purview of the Church, and, by making them entitlements rather than charitable, to decrease the charity and goodwill in the world.
There you have it folks. The reason for feeding the poor is not that the poor are fed, it's so that rich people can have the opportunity to be charitable.

What a sociopathic view.

That view is espoused by the acolytes of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. Unfortunately, Objectivist views are on the rise in the US and, perhaps now, the UK?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
That view is espoused by the acolytes of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. Unfortunately, Objectivist views are on the rise in the US and, perhaps now, the UK?

No. The rich helping the poor is not espoused by Ayn Rand, and is felt to be "sinful" (in an atheist sense) by her. For whatever reason the rich help the poor. She hates it. It's the essence of what's wrong with Christianity to her.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Though the world would have been no poorer if she'd never written a word, that is incorrect.
In her own words:

quote:
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is it something about the season of the year, that is bringing these weirdos out? A friend of mine is married to the man who penned this. From denigrating witches, on to gay people and then off into the wild blue yonder.
My sympathies to your friend, for being married to that creep. He's a misogynist, who's afraid of losing power and position to women. ...

This creep needs to put down the funny mushrooms, LSD, ayahuasca, and his subscription to "Patriarchy R Us", and get to the emergency room. Preferably one with only female staff on duty, all wearing Pagan symbols and the LGBT rainbow flag.

It has taken some years, but a growing circle of our mutual acquaintance is beginning to slowly come to that consensus. This woman is tied to a loon. She may be in trouble, if not now then someday. She loyally supports him and spends a lot of energy on line (Facebook, etc.) cleaning up after him, rationalizing and explaining, etc.
It is not clear what, if anything, can be done about this. There are four children, some with disabilities. He is the only one working outside the home. I no longer feel comfortable inviting them to dinner (he's really intolerable). I work myself during the day, and so cannot visit her. I run into her at professional functions and am friendly then, perhaps twice a year. I had to bail out of her Facebook page because his friends are all there, bloviating.

[ 30. March 2017, 14:16: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Boogie, many people think things are immoral that hurt no one but the person doing them, if they in fact hurt anyone at all.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I was on the receiving end of homophobia for years in the Church of England. The aggression ranged from the tediously passive to the painfully active, but all had one thing in common - there was no "phobia" about it. This was not fear, this was all that was most base and revolting about human nature, directed against someone they'd persuaded themselves Wasn't Like Us.

And that's what it is. The good old fashioned dislike-for-the-unlike, the animal instinct at the back of our brains now so proscribed by there being so many categories of people you're not allowed to hate, finding one category that the Church won't object too much about you lashing out at.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Boogie, many people think things are immoral that hurt no one but the person doing them, if they in fact hurt anyone at all.

I didn't ask that, I asked "how could it be immoral if it hurts no-one?" i.e. no one at all.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Well don't ask me, ask the people who believe it. All I said was people who do believe that actions that are harmless to anyone save the people who are doing them are immoral should have the courtesy to shut up and mind their own business about it.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Oooo look (Aussies look away now, though you probably know this already) a desperately bullied archbishop speaks

My sympathy knows no..............beginning.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the point is that if you consider something immoral, the assumption is that it is hurting someone. If you believe that gay sex will send you to hell, that is the "hurt". So I think it is fair to assume that thinking someone is immoral, you think it will do then harm.

That, surely, is the problem - a belief that being gay will hurt people. When I believed that being gay was wrong, that would be my argument, and I would therefore try to help people not hurt themselves (or others).

But then this doesn't seen to fit with deliberately and explicitly hurting these people. Why send hate mail to someone if you have any real concern about them hurting themselves? Even if you just want to stop them hurting others, doing this by sending them hate mail doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if you actually hate them and want them to die painfully.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Oooo look (Aussies look away now, though you probably know this already) a desperately bullied archbishop speaks

My sympathy knows no..............beginning.

That link takes me to a page asking payment for subscribing to The Australian.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That link slammed me into a paywall so hard it nearly knocked the mobile from my hands. a search on Glenn Davies only brought that link or much older ones.

[ 30. March 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm sorry, I'm not sure why it didn't me - perhaps my evil adblocker came to my aid.

You aren't missing much.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That link slammed me into a paywall so hard it nearly knocked the mobile from my hands. a search on Glenn Davies only brought that link or much older ones.

You can look at the cached version from the search engine (I found it in google's cache).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Thank you.

Here is an easily accessible synopsis.
More of the "you are oppressing me by not allowing me to oppress" rubbish.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

You need to know that the Anglican Church League, the source linked by lilBuddha, is the organisation which strongly supports Sydney Anglicanism. The Australian newspaper in the first links is a Murdoch publication. As far as reporting of news is concerned, it's a very good paper. Alas, the same can no longer be said about its comment pages; when the paper was new and especially under the editorship of Adrian Deamer, they were quite liberal (not Liberal), well worth reading and very influential. No longer.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If you read the article the Archbishop of Sydney goes on to say

quote:
Even in Aboriginal culture marriage is valued as between a man and a woman.

This puts carrying on digging when you're already in a hole into a hitherto unknown league.

No doubt this is one of the bishops that ++Justin and ++York are thinking of when they say we need to ensure the CofE keeps on the side of other member churches of the Anglican Communion. [Mad]

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

L'Organist wrote, re the Abp of Sydney:

quote:
No doubt this is one of the bishops that ++Justin and ++York are thinking of when they say we need to ensure the CofE keeps on the side of other member churches of the Anglican Communion.

Actually I rather doubt it – I think they are concerned about the Africans (excepting the Southern African Province, that is). Sydney only finds favour with a very, very small Evangelical minority within the C of E.
And by the way, if you're going to call Canterbury by his Christian name (++Justin), shouldn't you do the same for York (++Sentamu)?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Ahem.

/Pedant alert/

Shouldn't that be ++ John .....?

IJ

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Ahem.

/Pedant alert/

Shouldn't that be ++ John .....?

IJ

Apparently not. cf. the recent statement on erm...well, the obvious issue......

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Confused]

Am I missing summink here? ++Justin (Welby) is My Lord of Canterbury, and ++John (Sentamu) is My Lord of York.

Any references to a Certain Person whose initials are JJ were not intended.....

IJ

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The Archbishop of York is styled Sentamu Ebor at his own request.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, I never! I stand corrected, and thanks for the info.

Normal service on this thread may now resume...

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I wouldn't wipe my arse with The Australian. It's trash.
Here is a link to the story from the ABC.
The Archbishop is simply wrong, and probably knows he is. Polls have indicated most Australians support marriage equality.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Latest polling report I'm aware of is here.
See page 5, which indicates 57% of Australians would vote for marriage equality in a plebiscite.
Presumably his grace can read.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

NZ has become a wedding venue for some Australian same sex couples.

I'm guessing that marriage is not deemed valid when the couple return home.

Thanks for the polling report Dark Knight. I hadn't read any figures before.

Huia

[ 01. April 2017, 04:28: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Being pretty old now I remember a time before the Pill and when sex was said to be only for marriage. Our Society does now seem totally obsessed by sex (in the Media certainly) giving the impression that if you are not getting your fair share you are not normal. The real facts seem to be that people are actually getting less and less.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I remember reading the first Kinsey reports (published 1950s?). I remember being slightly horrified when he said that all humans were bisexual and adulterous and refused to categorise them into heterosexuals and heterosexuals although he did say heterosexuality and homosexuality did exist. He gave his subjects lots of sexual situations and asked them to rate them erotically.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Kinsey was important in the conversations he started, but his methodology was horrendous. Whilst it is more and more apparent that sexuality is a spectrum, one needs to read his conclusions carefully.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
That view is espoused by the acolytes of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. Unfortunately, Objectivist views are on the rise in the US and, perhaps now, the UK?
No. The rich helping the poor is not espoused by Ayn Rand, and is felt to be "sinful" (in an atheist sense) by her. For whatever reason the rich help the poor. She hates it. It's the essence of what's wrong with Christianity to her.

No--what I was referring to was that the only motivation for charity or other acts of of kindness ar when they benefit the one performing the acts. Not the act of charity itself.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kinsey was important in the conversations he started, but his methodology was horrendous. Whilst it is more and more apparent that sexuality is a spectrum, one needs to read his conclusions carefully.

I think that is the important thing from the last however-many-years growth of understanding, that sexuality is not as straight forward as it might appear.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
NZ has become a wedding venue for some Australian same sex couples.

I'm guessing that marriage is not deemed valid when the couple return home.

Thanks for the polling report Dark Knight. I hadn't read any figures before.

Huia

To be recognsied here, a marriage performed in another jurisdiction has to have been valld there and would have been valid had it been performed here. In other words, no bigamous/polygamous marriages, not yet gay marriages and so forth.

As to Kinsey's sexual direction, I understood that modern teaching was that while it was a spectrum, most people were gathered at the straight end, some at the gay and but not so many on the wide band between. Is that still the case?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As to Kinsey's sexual direction, I understood that modern teaching was that while it was a spectrum, most people were gathered at the straight end, some at the gay and but not so many on the wide band between. Is that still the case?

Varies, depending on who you ask, but yes. Though the fluidity of those positions is being questioned as well.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks - and just making it clear that there was nothing directed against anyone or their inclinations in my post.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To be recognsied here, a marriage performed in another jurisdiction has to have been valld there and would have been valid had it been performed here. In other words, no bigamous/polygamous marriages, not yet gay marriages and so forth.

Thanks Gee D - I thought that would be the case.

Huia

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I know a number of couples married in New Zealand... or Canada, or in a UK high commission.

It's a standard part of conversation with homosexual couples, to ask where they got married because it's always overseas in some form.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Perhaps 1 day soon......

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Tangent/ This is not a topic for Hell, because I am not trying to start a trans-Tasman war, but I am really intrigued by the social and political differences between Australia and New Zealand. I think I grew up being more aware of the similarities. I don't know enough to start a discussion in Purg, but just every so often I stumble up against something and am aware of the different approaches.

I'm not even sure where/how I would start increasing my knowledge.

Huia - Ignorance is not bliss.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

You're welcome to come and stay with us for a bit.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Many years ago my job was to work amongst the Prostitutes of Balsall Heath in Birmingham. For a young man of 23 this was actually very frightening. Those Middle Aged women knew all there was to know about Male Sexuality. As one said to me 'I can seduce any man and I know exactly what to say and do to you'. As I didn't want to lose my job and in any way be compromised, I managed to resist any offer. However she said 'Men are not in charge of their sexuality. They can't seduce women. Any woman worth her salt can get the man they want to perform properly'. I asked her about 'Homosexuals'. 'No problem' she said. You are all the same. You all have a self-destruct button that's needs satisfying and you will do and pay anything to get it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Many years ago my job was to work amongst the Prostitutes of Balsall Heath in Birmingham. For a young man of 23 this was actually very frightening. Those Middle Aged women knew all there was to know about Male Sexuality. As one said to me 'I can seduce any man and I know exactly what to say and do to you'. As I didn't want to lose my job and in any way be compromised, I managed to resist any offer. However she said 'Men are not in charge of their sexuality. They can't seduce women. Any woman worth her salt can get the man they want to perform properly'. I asked her about 'Homosexuals'. 'No problem' she said. You are all the same. You all have a self-destruct button that's needs satisfying and you will do and pay anything to get it.

Good grief, do you believe that?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I asked her about 'Homosexuals'. 'No problem' she said. You are all the same. You all have a self-destruct button that's needs satisfying and you will do and pay anything to get it.

Many years ago outside a train station in London, a woman asked me the time for the purpose of getting me to lean in close to her. She then asked me if I was interested in going somewhere to have sex. This homosexual said no and walked away, button unpressed.

You live your anecdote, and I'll live mine.

[ 03. April 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Perhaps 1 day soon......

I ain't holding my breath. The government has on this and many other topics locked itself into a fixed position in a way that is not very compatible with the way Parliamentary democracy actually works (i.e. "winning" an election does not give you control of the Parliament), and generally seems unable to untangle itself from the kinds of promises it made.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Soon is a relative rather than an exact term, but don't hold your breath at all.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
... Those Middle Aged women knew all there was to know about Male Sexuality. ...

Well, not really. They do know a lot about the sexuality of a subset of men who purchase sexual services from middle-aged prostitutes, however.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
... Those Middle Aged women knew all there was to know about Male Sexuality. ...
Well, not really. They do know a lot about the sexuality of a subset of men who purchase sexual services from middle-aged prostitutes, however.

Silly Soror, of course they can push the buttons of even gay men as there are no such thing as real homosexuals. Just men who've decided to be perverse and women who have not met the right man. Or who have succumb to the wiles of the sapphic satanic propaganda. AKA feminism.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Many years ago my job was to work amongst the Prostitutes of Balsall Heath in Birmingham...As one said to me 'I can seduce any man and I know exactly what to say and do to you'.

quote:
I managed to resist any offer.

So she couldn't then.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Many years ago my job was to work amongst the Prostitutes of Balsall Heath in Birmingham. For a young man of 23 this was actually very frightening. Those Middle Aged women knew all there was to know about Male Sexuality. As one said to me 'I can seduce any man and I know exactly what to say and do to you'. As I didn't want to lose my job and in any way be compromised, I managed to resist any offer. However she said 'Men are not in charge of their sexuality. They can't seduce women. Any woman worth her salt can get the man they want to perform properly'. I asked her about 'Homosexuals'. 'No problem' she said. You are all the same. You all have a self-destruct button that's needs satisfying and you will do and pay anything to get it.

And now that you're not, presumably, a frightened young man of 23 you know what kind of bullshit this is. Not even all heterosexuals 'are the same' when it comes to sex.

As Soror Magna says, no doubt she knew a lot about the kind of men who pay women to fuck them. However, I'm willing to believe that doesn't include every man who ever lived, including the ones who don't want EVERY and/or ANY woman to fuck them.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

"Men are not in charge of their sexuality." [Roll Eyes]

Sounds like a wonderful rape defence to me. "I couldn't help it, your Honour! I'm not in charge of my sexuality! She knew how to push my buttons!"
Was this rather pointless anecdote shared with the denizens for a purpose other than giving us a new chew toy?

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Men do pay for Sex. Most of them. The 'old' prostitutes of Balsall Heath and Soho may have long gone working out of Flats in Dingy Areas. They have been replaced by Escort Agencies and Massage Parlours (though these final ones are in decline due to Police and Council Crackdowns). One of my final jobs was in Advertising - our Main Clients (which we didn't like) were Escorts and Parlours accounted for 16% of all our Advertising and most of our Profits. The Sex Trade is now estimated by the Inland Revenue as around 1% of GDP. Strip Shows, Gentleman's Clubs, Pole Dancing, Lap Dancing, X-Rated downloads, Videos and DVDs, Playboy and other Magazines, nude Houseworkers, TV and Hotel 'Red' Pay Channels - the list is enormous.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Porn isn't "paying for sex" in the same way that engaging a prostitute is. Neither are strip clubs, etc. unless they also include acts of prostitution.
So, "most men pay for sex" is an inaccurate statement because your criteria are not how most people think of it. Those activities are exploitive as well, so I'm not defending them, but they are not precisely equivilant.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

If you all want to know about the UKs prostitution trade (and London now apparently has the most Trafficked Eastern European Girls in the whole of the EU.) then I suggest you ask someone who works in the Hotel Trade. At weekends 95% of rooms are let to 'rich old men' with an 'Escort'. I don't approve. But lets not pretend it isn't one of the UK growth industries especially for foreign tourists especially from the Middle East.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm not saying there is not a problem with prostitution, exploitation, trafficking and all that. There is and not enough is done to try to fix this.
But grouping wanking to porn in with prostitution and quoting doubtful statistics doesn't help.
"let's not pretend" [Roll Eyes]

I can be accused of many things, but overlooking the exploitation of women sure as fuck isn't one of them.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Maybe we should talk about 'Escort Agencies', - which is basically the way round Prostitution Laws in the UK. Every single one is offering Sex with the Escorts - Here's the preamble to would-be escorts from the most upmarket and legal Escort Agency - 'However, you need to be comfortable with having sex with your clients, because it is unofficially accepted that they are paying you in part for it. If you are not ready to provide sexual services as well, your career as an escort will be very limited because there are clients who just want your company for a brief period of time.'

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Porn isn't "paying for sex" in the same way that engaging a prostitute is.

Besides which, who the hell pays for porn any more?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

"Most"? As in nearly all? As in most of the men in church and at Meeting? As in most of the men I have met at work? As in most of my men friends?

I don't believe you.

Some. Obviously. But most? What is your evidence?

Oh, and "Gentlemen's Clubs". Not, by any reasonable definition, gentlemen.

[ 04. April 2017, 11:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
At weekends 95% of rooms are let to 'rich old men' with an 'Escort'.

[citation needed]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Garden Hermit, stop the distraction tactics. You made a post citing a prostitute's opinion of all men's sexuality, regardless of orientation. And you appear to have uncritically received this opinion as gospel; perhaps rather as one might expect a naive 23 year old to do?

'Oh yeah, this prostitute says that even homosexuals will pay for sex with women, so obviously they're not really homosexuals, are they? It's just a myth!'

However, you are not now a stupid 23 year old with no mind of your own. So for once follow through your original post. Just because an experienced sex worker has some insight - not surprisingly - into the sexual habits of men who want to use prostitutes, doesn't actually make her the Masters and Johnson of Birmingham, and the rest of the world.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Maybe we should talk about 'Escort Agencies'

Why? So we can ignore your ignorant comment about homosexuals?

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, you are not now a stupid 23 year old with no mind of your own.

Well, he's not 23...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Maybe we should talk about 'Escort Agencies', - which is basically the way round Prostitution Laws in the UK. Every single one is offering Sex with the Escorts - Here's the preamble to would-be escorts from the most upmarket and legal Escort Agency - 'However, you need to be comfortable with having sex with your clients, because it is unofficially accepted that they are paying you in part for it. If you are not ready to provide sexual services as well, your career as an escort will be very limited because there are clients who just want your company for a brief period of time.'

You've clearly done a great deal of research on this subject [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, methinks the Gentleman doth protest too much....

[Two face]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Interesting to read this in conjunction with his opinions about the feminisation of the church and women taking the world over in general.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O how I wish some strong (but sensible) women* would come along, and take over the world by scolding Trim, Kutin, and Prump into behaving themselves...

*Benedictine nuns, perhaps? Or Michelle Obama, Nicola Sturgeon, and Angela Merkel acting in concert?

IJ

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The amount of confirmation bias caused by having visited one seedy hotel in the middle of London is staggering.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Maybe we should talk about 'Escort Agencies'. . .

Oh, if only this website had a way you could start a "New Topic", perhaps with some kind of button at the bottom of the page! Then you could have the kind of discussion you're really into, about escorts and prostitutes.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I could take a straw poll from the hosts as to where such a thread might go. I'm guessing Circus...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I could take a straw poll from the hosts as to where such a thread might go. I'm guessing Circus...

Probably Piccadilly Circus.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O how I wish some strong (but sensible) women would come along, and take over the world by scolding Trim, Kutin, and Prump into behaving themselves...

Come come. There is no such thing as naughty Dictators, only naughty behaviour.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0