‘T’was his penis wot dunnit…
According to Joan Smith at the Guardian the reason that Derrick Bird went on his killing spree in Cumbria was that he was a sexual predator.
The reason being, using her tortuous and convoluted logic was that he visited prostitutes in Pattaya. In fact he was so much of a predator that he insisted on seeing the same girl every time he visited the bar where she worked and he sent her over a thousand pounds so she could quit the bar game, thus – Guardian logic follows – his depravity forced him to become a mass murderer on returning home.
Of course the bleatarati got going with the comments like “how true!’ and “ban men” (yes really) by people who have obviously never been to Thailand and learned all there is to know about the Thai sex trade from the pages of the Guardian. A few real gems stood out, such as one by some idiot calling itself ‘proudlycynical’ who said: “sex tourism in Thailand is officially a state sanctioned industry…” That comment pretty much summed up the Guardianista’s view on Thailand and anyone who loves (and more importantly knows about) this country will know that it is completely untrue. In fact the reverse is true; it may be overlooked, in return for suitable brown envelopes regularly arriving on senior police officer’s desks, but prostitution is actually illegal in Thailand.
And what about this priceless gem from Damntheral who said: “[…]because we see men using prostitutes as ‘normal’, we fail to stop men like Derek Bird before it’s too late: that in short, we must view all men who use prostitutes as vermin at best and potential mass-murderers at worst. Only then can we be protected from men like Derek Bird.” Or from Paleologue we have: “Thousands of men go off all the time to sample the dubious” delights” of near-paedophilia in Thailand”. Near-paedophilia? What on earth is near-paedophilia?
There is nothing new in this: I remember an article in the Denver Post a few years ago where their reporter stated that you could get underaged girls forced to perform fellatio on you while you sipped your latte in a particular coffee shop in Bangkok. The problem was that the coffee shop she mentioned happened to be a very up-market café, in an expensive area of Bangkok, that is frequented by well heeled Bangkokians. I spoke to a few of them at the time about it and they were incandescent with rage (i.e. they frowned) at the big fat quivering lie.
And if the mendacity didn’t get you the hypocrisy would because, as everyone in Denver knows, the Denver Post is situated on Colfax Avenue which is THE place in Denver to pick up under aged crack whores. In fact you could stand almost on the steps of the Denver Post building any evening and you’d be accosted by pimps pushing the services of their 13 and 14 year old victims. Has the Denver Post campaigned against this? What do you think?
But they’re not alone, other news organizations feel it’s perfectly ok to trash Thailand’s reputation; for example take this steaming pile from the BBC. There are so many lies in that article it is almost impossible to fisk but note that the girl was a volunteer, she could leave at any time and eventually did. She also said: “One time a Japanese man followed me all the way home at the end of the night, and he kept screaming at me,” but forgot to mention that it was because she had ripped him off. Oh yes and note the fact that western men “prefer children or young girls” forgetting to mention that sleeping with an under-aged girl is a VERY serious offence in Thailand which would land both the punter and the bar owner in the Bangkok Hilton for a very long time. The Thais even jailed a Senator, who are usually immune to just about everything, for 30 years for sleeping with a 15 year old.
My Thai friends want to know why the BBC – the BBC of all people – should tell lies like this. How do you explain that dogma trumps verity in today’s BBC to people that always believed that auntie told the truth?
Back in Guardian world Ms Smith went on to write in crayon: “The widespread cultural imperative to normalise sex tourism by Western men in south-east Asia is a barrier to admitting how damaging the trade is to women.”
/sigh
Listen love; let me help you out here, because you are obviously utterly ill informed, by telling you the real story of sex tourism in Thailand.
First of all let me correct one of your assertions, to whit: “It’s a centre of Thailand’s deeply exploitative sex trade, where foreign men go to pay for sex – it costs as little as £10 – with young Thai girls and women who have been forced into it by poverty.”
I happen to agree that it is deeply exploitative but not of the women working in the industry but the poor suckers who get snared by them. Almost every week a foreigner hurls himself to his death from Mike Bazaar [sic] in central Pattaya after being fleeced out of his life savings by unscrupulous bargirls. You can see a discussion on the topic here by Pattaya residents and an example here.
From the moment they step off the bus from Isaan these girls are taught how to extract the maximum amount of money from their mark, often without even sleeping with him. All new bargirls, who know exactly what they’re doing long before they arrive, are issued with a small book in which there are listed some ‘useful’ phrases like: “Hallo hansom man” and “you buy drink/gole for me?” They are also extensively coached, by their ‘sisters’, on how to manipulate their mark emotionally so they can get him to ‘sponsor’ her into quitting the game by sending her money every month. I know a lot of girls who have 10 or more sponsors sending up to £1,000 pm each and, more often than not, they also pay for her apartment and car. Meanwhile these same girls carry on hooking new victims by continuing to work in the bars. Note that they are not forced but choose to stay in the industry because it offers excitement, money, fun and unfettered sex which are totally lacking back in their villages. Yet they are still able to send money home to support their siblings or offspring. There is no way an uneducated village girl can command that sort of money in any other job. No wonder there is no shortage of new girls entering the trade – this is Hollywood Thai style.
The clever ones parlay their money into legitimate businesses (I know one girl who owns a massive supermarket in her home town – she now works in a massage parlour in Leicester incidentally, leaving her mother to run it – and another who owns a fleet of Bangkok taxis) others thoroughly enjoy themselves, spending their money on gambling, drugs and booze, until their looks fade and their prices drop to the £10 mentioned in the article. This is the point where they seriously start to look for a foreign husband.
What about their ‘predators’ though, those evil western men? Aren’t they all vicious, nasty, exploitative baskets who get off on forcing under-aged girls to do unspeakable things? Which they can only do in the fleshpots of Asia; because, as we know from the Guardian, Asians are all foul misogynists who actually enjoy pimping their under aged daughters to foreign sleazebags.
Well you can read some of their real life stories here. Aside from the cock wavers most of the stories are full of pathos or impotent anger. These are not exploiters, these are the exploited. The MSM seems to have problems with why these men come here and, after wracking their brains, came up with the notion that they’re either paedophiles or they get off on dominating meek women.
Well, as far as the second point goes, they obviously haven’t met any Thai women. Anyone that knows will tell you that they are quite capable of mindless, screeching, armed, fury especially if they think they are losing face. There are a lot more men maimed or killed either by women or on behalf of women than the converse.
As for paedophiles, yes there are some, but the Thais take a pretty dim view of them and it usually isn’t long before they get their collars felt by the boys in brown (Police) after a tip off. Oddly enough the majority of the cases I have seen concern Cambodian children smuggled in and exploited by their mothers! Funny how nobody in the Guardian ever mentions that fact.
Just about every man I’ve talked to about the subject over here gave me the same answer and that was they felt that Thai women are more ‘Real’ – aka feminine. And they’re not talking about them being more subservient because, if there is one thing that every Thai woman believes in and that is that she is the equal of any man. And they are, in fact they’re more than equal. Women own well over 60% of the wealth of the country and at one time men were regarded almost as chattels. The custom was that if a man wanted to marry the daughter he’d have to pay ‘Sin sot’ or dowry. But not in money, no instead he had to work, for free, on the family farm for a year and a day. Land was always passed down the matriarchal line and was worked by the men. The quid pro quo is that girls are expected, by both custom and practice, to care for their parents in their old age as well as their own offspring – men, on the other hand, were only expected to give their monk robes to their mothers.
Hence you arrive at the situation where many men are feckless womanizers taking no responsibility for anything, which leaves the women bearing the burden – oddly enough you can see the same thing happening in parts of South London.
Security for their family is what drives a lot of poor Thai women and makes them ruthless and exploitative and frankly who can blame them?
But they cannot be regarded as being exploited at least not by westerners who are, if anything, their saviours.
By publishing this blether the Guardian, like the BBC, appears to have finally given up trying to be a serious, factual news outlet.
Kevin
June 17, 2010 at 15:04
-
Fascinating thread.
‘I
- June 16, 2010 at 17:40
-
maybe d.bird liked going to thailand because he could get a shag with a
nice looking girl?
what would he get in the uk? a grizzled old bat with bingo wings,bloated on
pizza and kebabs,with false teeth and a moustache!
british women seem to think they are wonderful…..yet they are easily
spotted on holiday……with big guts hanging out and a fag in thier mouths….
do yourself a favour viking.go to thailand.
find a nice girl.
be nice
to her.
in the morning she will do the ironing and clear up your room!
sounds like you need a good shag!
-
June 16, 2010 at 20:36
-
The coarseness of your language is matched only by your apparent lack of
intelligence.
I suggest that Mr bird went to Thailand to buy sex, because he was
incapable of finding a nice girl and forming a proper relationship here,
because he was a weirdo.
You know, relationship? Probably not.
Is that why you went bofl? Is that why you defend such a degrading thing?
Do you like the ‘nice looking girls’ bofl? ‘Give me 5 Dollar, I love you
long time’?
You can trust me, I promise not to tell.
- June 16, 2010 at 16:16
-
Your trashy generalizations of Thai prostitutes is fairly bizarre, almost
racist in its viciousness.
I’m not even sure the point. You pretend to defend Thailand’s reputation
then smear the women, you then fain outrage at the exaggerations of Thai women
selling their children, while implying the same thing about Cambodian mothers,
then you suggest that Thai women are very strong, and conclude that in many
cases, western men are their saviours.
I don’t get it.
I’m thinking the point of the article is that affluent white gits should be
able to go to Pattaya without any public scrutiny, or should in fact be pitied
for having to steep to such low levels to get their rocks off.
I don’t know if you have ever been to Pattaya, but its a cesspool, and it’s
not due to the Thai women who live there.
- June 16, 2010 at 10:26
-
viking..you are talking bollocks……..where do your ‘morals’ come from?
sex is a natural thing. imho the English are repressed and that leads to a
lot of problems. in your world having a night in pattaya with a woman leads to
murder? so your ‘pint’ must inevitably lead to alchoholism and drug
addiction………obviously then mass murder?
thailand is not perfect. in case you had not noticed so is the uk.
there
are many reasons that thai ladies sell sex.most do so out of choice.of course
some are not happy. but then there are millions of brits doing jobs they hate
or being unemployed.
so what about all the English girls that go out and shag loads of guys
every week .for nothing!!!!! why? maybe because they like it? or they are
attention seekers? or ?
would i become a mass murderer if i screwed some slag that i met the same
night?
dont be daft………
as for the guardian……..drivel……written by brain dead morons that have never
had an original thought in their lives…….sure there are some ‘nasty’ men but
we don’t have womens prisons for nothing!
ps didn’t vikings enjoy a bit of rape and pillage?
-
June 16, 2010 at 14:21
-
bofl
Read my comments more carefully and you will realise that your comments
do not make sense.
Why try and make it seem as though I have said things that I have not?
Perhaps it is because you cannot refute the things I have said, so try to
paint me the (repressed) fool for things that I haven’t?
With regard to my morals, a moral is not a transient, relative thing. If
it is, then it is only an opinion. If something was morally wrong yesterday,
it follows that it must remain morally wrong today, tomorrow and forever.
Pretending that the abandonment of morals is ‘progress’ is no such thing,
and if it continues, we will indeed regress (with a ‘g’, not a ‘p’) to the
standards of my less civilised forefathers that you mention.
PS Don’t think me a Guardian reader, I wouldn’t even have that rag in the
outhouse.
- June 16, 2010 at 15:25
-
‘I was saying that once a person has stepped over the moral boundary
and begins to use prostitutes it becomes easier to ignore other social
norms as well’.
that is what you wrote……….
so are your ‘morals’ higher than others?
who decides what is
virtuous?
if it were true that one thing leads to another we would all be mass
murderers or drug addicts.which is totally ridiculous. i like the
occasionally pint.it doesnt mean that i will end up as a down and out does
it?
have you been to thailand?
the thais are very proud people……not a
good idea to insult them as the national sport is kickboxing!
do your morals come from experience or just a book supposedly written
by the big sky pixie?
buddhist values are different to western ideals. or are they?
i
lived in germany.there is a red light area in most german cities. in
frankfurt the area is just by the main railway station….apparently lots of
businessmen go for a quicky before going home!
are they criminals? are they on a rocky road to pandemonium?
ps.i think that the way lots of women are enslaved and FORCED into
prostitution in the uk by mainly eastern european gangsters in
appalling……
- June 16, 2010 at 20:22
-
bofl,
Ahh, the inevitable ‘sky pixie’! How original. Where did you come up
with that one I wonder?
In what way have I insulted Thais? By objecting to exploitation of
vulnerable women in the UK?
Do you really think I will change my
mind, or choose not to speak it, because the Thais are good at
kickboxing? Are they going to ‘get me’?
You ask if the users of prostitutes are criminals? Well, if they use
them in countries where prostitution is illegal, then yes. It’s really
easy – commit a crime, become a criminal.
I have not mentioned buddhists, nor there values, so I have no idea
why you have.
You quote a paragraph of mine. I stand by it. It is not a social norm
to either use a prostitute or to be one. It was thought immoral (hence
the charge ‘living off immoral earnings’) for a very long time. It is
only in recent years, when easily manipulated, weak-minded individuals,
who repeat only what they read, tagged onto the idea that it somehow
wrong (whilst paradoxically claiming that there is no right or wrong) to
say that something is wrong.
READ the comments. Then THINK. Then write.
-
June 15, 2010 at 19:02
-
Anna,
You’re welcome, and thank you for an interesting blog.
-
June 15, 2010 at 12:33
-
It has occurred to me in the past that, if you’re running a socialist
state, the last thing you want is other bastards running happy, successful
states without the wholesale wealth redistribution. It might give the punters
ideas, and so has to be vilified at every opportunity.
Therefore the sub-text of the Guardian piece is, see that bar girl? That’s
your daughter, that is, if you don’t give the government half your money.
- June 14, 2010 at 23:46
-
Joan Smith who wrote the original article is a typical Man hating feminazi.
I have come to the conclusion that feminism is not about libersating women but
subjugating men. Like every other feminist she is suffering from massive penis
envy because she wasn’t born a man and she hates proper feminine women because
men prefer them to fat ugly moaning hypocritical control freaks like her. It
is women like her who are responsible for men in the Anglosphere going on
Marriage strike!!!! And it will be Western women who will end up lonely
,loveless childless and with increasing mental health problems as the men who
want to get married and raise families do so with Foreign Wives leaving the
Anglobitchers on the shelf. Marriage strike, you know it makes sense!!!!!
- June 15, 2010 at 10:48
-
Mark, I was sat around with a group mates the other day. We are all
successful men in our 30
- June 15, 2010 at 17:03
-
I guess all those chav girls could improve their careers, and thus
become ‘dignified ladies’, by becoming prostitutes, which you think a fine
thing, judging by your earlier posts.
At least be consistent.
-
June 15, 2010 at 17:42
-
Are you trying to be an arse?
- June 15, 2010 at 18:17
-
You could always resort to abuse when your argument fails.
- June 15, 2010 at 18:25
-
English Viking and Kingbingo,
I have to say – the discussion
between you two, although heated, has been fascinating and
illuminating, and I thank you both for taking so much time and
trouble to elucidate your thoughts. I have been riveted reading
you.
Thank-you, both of you.
Anna
- June 15, 2010 at 19:59
-
Well I think that of you and your extraordinary blog more than
50 times over. This was just a brief chat. You turn out quality on
a daily basis. Bravo.
-
June 15, 2010 at 20:00
-
“You could always resort to abuse when your argument fails.”
http://thecbook.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/picard-facepalm.jpg
- June 15, 2010 at 22:55
-
June 14, 2010 at 19:17
-
Peter Hitchens suggested that anti-depressants might be the root of the
problem and cites various killing sprees where they were involved:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1284311/PETER-HITCHENS-Perhaps-deadly-rampages-arent-inexplicable-all.html
I also noted from this report that Christopher Foster was on
anti-depressants when he killed his family:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167196/Revealed-Why-millionaire-Christopher-Foster-slaughtered-family.html
The Guardian and the BBC with the fabulous resources at their command
should try investigative reporting – speculation and pontification is
something that anyone can do.
-
June 14, 2010 at 22:19
-
Or perhaps people that are so mentally disturbed that they need
medication are slightly more pre-disposed to ‘going off on one’?
- June 14, 2010 at 18:47
-
“……..girls forced to perform fellatio on you while you sipped your latte in
a particular coffee shop in Bangkok.”
Was it Starf#cks?
- June 14, 2010 at 17:14
-
Most of the links are bad, please fix
- June 14, 2010 at 17:28
-
June 14, 2010 at 16:50
-
This is the main reason why I hate the left. The left is wholly
inconsistent
-
June 14, 2010 at 16:32
-
I am a reader of the Guardian – if not a ‘Guardian reader’. It’s a great
newspaper, despite some of the incomprehensible and/or hypocritical views of
its erstwhile columnists. I love the sport, the off centre culture features
and some commentators like Tatchell, Cohen and Kettle seem genuine.
It also helps to ‘know one’s enemy’.
Anyway, anybody else think that the Graun columnists’ stance on
prostitution is in stark contrast to their general position on drug-use? I
feel that their live-and-let-live position on illegal substances contrasts
with their views on sex………..at least it does for heterosexual white males.
This is the main reason why I hate the left. The left is wholly
inconsistent.
- June 14, 2010 at 16:16
-
Despite being a former Guardian reader I’ve always suspected a lot of
people who write for the paper do not live on this planet. They see no
contrdiction in ranting about the evils of colonialism and promoting the
version of our Empires history written for us by black American preacher
politicians while at the same time assuming nations like Thailand are not
capable of managing their own social order.
-
June 14, 2010 at 15:20
-
Two points.
1. Why are you surprised that the BBC and The Guardian are pedlars of
lies?
2. Whilst I do not think that Bird when on a shooting spree solely because
he used prostitutes, I think that those that do use them are
morally/mentally/emotionally defective and it does not surprise me if they
then go on to commit more crimes. Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rose West, Stephen
Wright, Dennis Nielsen (male prostitutes) and now Bird are all examples of
people who have/had come to the conclusion that people (hookers or not) are
merely commodities for their own pleasure, available in exchange for few quid.
It is then no surprise that they choose to dispense with these ‘commodities’
as and when it suits them, usually in a brutal fashion.
- June 14, 2010 at 15:31
-
“It is then no surprise that they choose to dispense with these
- June 14, 2010 at 15:38
-
English Viking – there are thousands of prostitutes in the UK, and you
have to assume that they have multiple clients (I know, I know, otherwise we
call them wives…..) the fact that you can point to a small percentage of
those clients who do become serial killers I don’t think proves a cause and
effect link! There are equally serial killers who use the bus, or eat
cheese, or dye their hair…….
Besides, there are prostitutes and
prostitutes, and clients and clients for that matter. The deeply
unattractive and unchivalrous Mr Barnes that I detailed the other day is a
world away from the punitively expensive ‘high class hookers’ of central
London where both client and prostitute prefer an arms legnth business
arrangement rather than a complicated relationship……
- June 14, 2010 at 17:02
-
I wasn’t saying that all ‘clients’ are criminals (except by the very
nature of the use of prostitutes), I was saying that once a person has
stepped over the moral boundary and begins to use prostitutes it becomes
easier to ignore other social norms as well.
You’ll note that the list of killers I gave were all ‘serial’ killers,
not your common or garden murderers.
If there is no link between the moral decay of ‘clients’ and serial
killing, why do so many serial killers use prostitutes?
You’ll have to go a very long way to convince me that those who
purchase sex in the same way as I would a pint of lager, and those that
sell sex in the same way I would sell a dog, are not either morally,
mentally or emotionally defective. It is hardly surprising that those who
view prostitutes as pieces of meat sometimes deal with them as such, and
the prostitutes themselves have so little self-worth they get involved in
all sorts of crimes, not just prostitution.
PS The ‘high class’ clients can be doubly as bad, as they are even more
accustomed to being able to buy what they like, and discard it when it no
longer pleases, as in the case of the son of the Yemeni oil baron, who
murdered a Norwegian exchange student in London recently, when she refused
to ‘sell’.
- June 14, 2010 at
17:29
-
June 15, 2010 at 11:07
-
- June 15, 2010 at 13:00
-
Your second paragraph makes galloping assumptions about what I
consider to be correct behaviour and is a completely incorrect
representation of my views. Casual, cheap, promiscuous sex is always
detrimental to participants, usually emotionally but not rarely
physically. Your main objection seems to be that the man has not paid
the woman, wheras mine would be the encouragement/condonement of
casual sex, without commitment, whether paid for or not.
You attempt to sanitise a filthy business, painting a picture of
blissfully happy prostitutes (they’re not) and well adjusted,
impeccably mannered ‘customers’ (they’re not). You seem to think that
sex can be divorced from emotion. It can’t, except by sociopaths.
As you can see nothing wrong with it, perhaps this would be a good
career choice for your daughter/sister/mother? Thought not.
PS With regard to the health of a young man’s liver, Hepatitis will
wreck it just as fast as Special Brew, and not a few prostitutes are
infected with this, and many other lethal diseases, as are their
‘customers’.
- June 15, 2010 at 14:40
-
You describe these people as morally/mentally/emotionally defective
and thus you have the causative or marker. That is simply
judgemental.
A lot of people us prostitutes who, presumably, do not go on to
become murderers never mind serial killers. So, I do not follow your
logic.
A lot of MPs, churchmen, schoolteachers, pensioners, doctors dentists
actors and even civil servants use prostitutes. In fact they probably
represent a reflective cross section of male society, work and education
wise. Leaving aside the MPs and churchmen who are actually self
selectively morally/mentally/emotionally defective any man of all
backgrounds could be morally/mentally/emotionally defective.
The unspoken truth is of the women who use the male equivalent. are
they morally/ mentally / emotionally defective, and will they go on to
become serial killers?
-
June 15, 2010 at 15:36
-
- June 15, 2010 at 16:24
-
B(TP)
You don’t follow my logic because you have either not read my
comment properly or else you are being obtuse. I have not asserted
that all users of prostitutes are/will be serial killers, merely that
the users of prostitutes are damaged/defective in some deep way,
therefore I am of the opinion that it is no surprise to find so many
serial killers have a thing for prostitutes.
I’m afraid that I do not subscribe to the ‘don’t judge me’ nonsense
which proliferates today. It’s not judgmental in the pejorative sense
if the opinion expressed is correct. We all judge, it’s normal. You
judge my opinion to be incorrect. I judge prostitution and those that
use prostitutes to be incorrect.
The unspoken truth about women that use prostitutes is that they
are a tiny fraction of the reverse situation, but I still think them
to be damaged/deficient in some awful way to feel the need to degrade
themselves in this manner.
To answer your question, I personally think that a very great deal
of women in prisons around the world have been (or intend to continue
to be) prostitutes at some time, even excluding those incarcerated for
prostitution. Whilst violence committed by women is on the rise in
this country, they are not as likely to go to become killers as men
are, probably because they are not as aggressive or strong, possibly
because they have a different psyche, although Rose West was both a
prostitute, a user of prostitutes and a serial killer at differing
times in her life.
-
June 15, 2010 at 16:39
-
Many points I could come back with, including your opening
strawman. But I
- June 15, 2010 at 16:56
-
KingBingo,
There is so much I disagree with in your comment, I don’t know
where to start.
You ‘respectfully’ swear at me.
You think I have hang-ups. Maybe, but I don’t think they are sexual
ones. Perhaps you are just depraved? Lascivious, possibly?
You seem to judge normality by how many of your friends are doing
the same thing. People tend to associate with those who think alike.
You wouldn’t want to spend a night out with someone like me, would
you? You sound like the Labour voter who couldn’t believe that Labour
didn’t win the last election because she didn’t know anybody that
hadn’t voted Labour.
You seem to think that women are justly liberated from the evil
prospect of acquiring a loving husband, that the free-market has
spoken, that their own earning power has freed them from these
constraints. So free that you would teach your daughter that it better
to be a whore than a factory worker or an office clerk (doesn’t say
much for your opinion of both the working class and your daughter).
You also seem to think that most prostitutes are earning so much dosh,
they don’t know how to spend it. I think the vast majority do it
because they have, in various ways, become unemployable, and they
barely raise enough to live to hook another day.
You may have, up to now, escaped relatively unscathed from your
promiscuity. Perhaps your ‘partners’ didn’t? Perhaps there is a baby
KingBingo on the loose somewhere, to come knocking on your door when
you least expect it? You wouldn’t know if neither of you know each
other’s names. Maybe there would have been a baby KingBingo, but the
girl could not face the thought of raising him alone, so she aborted
him? Perhaps one of your ‘partners’ holds the dreaded letter of
diagnosis in her hand, with a request from the hospital for the names
of all recent partners, but she doesn’t know you. Condoms split, they
can be incorrectly ‘deployed’, they can be discarded in the heat of
passion, or in a drunken haze. They are not a sure-fire prevention for
physical disease, and pinning all your hopes on a prophylactic to
prevent disaster of one form or another will, one day, lead to
tears.
You twist my words; prostitution is a filthy business, not sex, in
the right context.
It is true that some customers of Tesco will be rude, abrasive,
even aggressive or violent. Not many will infect the cashier with HIV
or HEP C (or be infected by the cashier), not many will obtain their
goods and then decide the best way to avoid paying would be to slit
the cashiers throat and throw them in the canal.
There is a word for attitude toward sex and your sexual partners;
selfishness.
-
June 15, 2010 at 17:39
-
- June 15, 2010 at 18:16
-
KingBingo,
Last one from me.
You admit you may have adversely affected your ‘partners’, yet deny
any harm in casual sex.
You admit that you are unaware of whether you have fathered any
children, and if so, how those children cope with not having their
father around.
You admit that it is a possibility that a previous partner may have
become pregnant and had an abortion, but think you have harmed no-one.
What about the child? What about the mother and the emotional turmoil
she may be suffering?
You have an actual experience of friend whose condom split, and he
contracted something (get him to check it out, won’t you? Just because
it has ‘gone away’, doesn’t mean it has) and yet you think ‘it
couldn’t happen to me’.
This is what I personally find strange about
Libertarianism/libertarians; the philosophy sounds pretty good on
paper, but when it comes time to put it into practice, the reality is
rather different. Ridiculous constructs must be adopted to ensure
consistency of argument, such as condoning one’s own daughter’s
prostitution (so long as she’s happy, eh?), and the adherent will
attempt to maintain the position despite it become more and more
apparent that their argument is becoming ridiculous, rather like
Socialism.
Some parts of Socialism are rather good, but I am not a Socialist
and I do not hide my contempt for the rather wacky parts of it, just
so I appear to maintain consistency. The same goes for Capitalism and
Nationalism, all sorts of things.
The chime of ‘consent’ is incorrect. Do prostitutes and their
customers consent to contracting STD’S? Do unwanted children consent
to abortions? Do children who grow up without a father, because the
mother does not know his name, consent?
Your selfishness will bite you back one day.
-
June 15, 2010 at 19:57
-
English Viking, since it is your last I will try and answer rather
than ask. Although I suspect your moral position is distorting how you
perceive my reasons to such an extent I will never be able to reason
you over. Furthermore I assure you are being judgemental and this goes
to the consistency part of your post. I am being entirely consistent.
People are free to associate as they see fit. I do not take a position
how people spend their own money, or who they have sex with, its none
of my business. I have never said your concept of sex requiring
commitment is wrong. If that
-
June 14, 2010 at 14:30
-
I’m pretty sure that Bird’s preference for Thai women wasn’t the spark that
set him going with a shotgun and rifle no matter how much the press dribble
and drool at the prospect of crowbarring some sex into the violence.
I know quite a few people who enjoy going to Thailand and although they may
have questionable reason for doing so, they certainly aren’t thinking about
shooting the place up when they get back.
It reminds me of the time that I read in one of these tabloids the comment
from a female columnist that all men are potential rapists. I put this latest
opinion from the Guardian in the same place, filed under complete
bollocks.
- June 14, 2010 at 14:27
-
Is Amsterdam subject to many pedal-by murder sprees?
-
June 14, 2010 at 14:14
-
Leftist commentators like Joan Smith do not know the difference between
shit and clay.
After the Crossbow Killer was caught – the Gruaniad was proclaiming that
the working girls of Yorkshire had a right to earn a living and as such needed
police protection. Likewise with the hookers murdered in Suffolk a couple of
years back.
Now that Derek Bird has been shown to have been a troubled lonely man with
severely disjointed thinking, he is now condemned for ‘supporting’ the Thai
sex trade and exploiting the bar girls.
So, there we have it – according to the left, if you are a prostitute and
you are white you are just an honest girl trying to make a living from
pathetic white men.
If you are a prostitute and are brown, you are being exploited by evil
white men.
Is it not racist to generalise in such a manner?
- June 14, 2010 at 14:18
{ 46 comments }