Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I... fucking hell, sorry dunno what to say. Just fucking hell.
she wouldn't get any money for the 'assessment'.
looking for a book about this, he was on his own and had obviously travelled to the uk partically/specifically to try this student escort thing
he's up there with the very best of 'em.
Freedom from exploitation
nuanced thinking isn't your forté is it?
Where's guntrip's parade?
Freedom to use urbandictionary.
the guy in that photo is the shadiest person i've ever seen though. i'd like to punch him one.
it's definitely the 'private assessment' that sends a shiver down the old spine.
to get student girls to touch his penis.
but maybe I'm giving the world too much credit...
from the article it definitely strikes me as more likely to be a ruse for this guy (perhaps with other guys) to get girls back to his flat (or "a" flat), with possibilities after that ranging from the unpleasant to the unthinkable. I highly doubt any money's going to be paid, certainly not in most cases or to anywhere near the amount advertised.
Not that I'm denying there are plenty of rich guys willing to pay for it, of course.
its obviously shady as fuck but there seem to be more safeguards here than i would assume there would be for most women driven to prostitution.
the safeguard of a guy taking you to his flat and at best sexually exploiting you, at worst raping you?
the fact that there is in the least a website/point of contact from which the police can investigate.
i'm not saying it is safe.
again....''i'm not saying it is safe''
"there seem to be more safeguards" which is directly saying that there are at least some safeguards which are things that mitigate against risk of not being safe. Which suggests you think it's more safe.
I would encourage you to backtrack no this...
hmm. it's gone midnight and i'm weary of being misinterpreted or not putting my points across properly, but all i was trying to say is what -dan- picked up on.
a website registered with a fake company name, a fraudulent VAT number and an unprovable account of how long they've been operating. Not to mention the safeguard of being able to see some printed-out sample profiles, although admittedly they're back at his flat. Don't know what you're worried about.
you're making it sound like i'm implying what has occurred/is occurring is safe, which i've at no point said.
As for what seems to be your general point that people who are concerned about this should be equally concerned (if not more so) about all people who are in the sex industry against their will, yeah, no problems with that. Go and argue with trollface upthread if you want some beef, I'm going to bed.
no beef wanted at all.
I'd gladly have sex with someone of the opposite sex, irrespective of their looks, hygiene, creepiness, etc, in return for £15k a year.
I mean, i own several properties, businesses and sportscars, etc, etc, but still.
To lots of people, sex is a precious thing that they associate with love, and being in love. To most people, though, nah, it's not, and isn't.
Some people need to grow up, methinks.
here's my trolling opinion
the feminazis don't need another submissive male to clean their knickers, they've already got untrue & still_here.
but being the uber successful stud muffin that you are, you probably haven't experienced the desperation that some of these women are prone to. if they're banging to get the iPhone 5 then yeah ok - if they're banging to get a better education then there's something really depressing.
Vulnerable, suggestible university students strapped for cash due to terrible government cutbacks that have increased the interest free loan they'll have to repay over a numbr of decades.
You can't expect them to consider all their options and think rationally about this therefore it's terrible.
how absolutely sexist of the female journalist who investigated and wrote this article
how sexist of her to expose a conman and sexual predator
I mean, what was she thinking?
Back Room Casting Couch. But with a UK slant on it.
he's like the new brightonb incarnation, even complete with imaginary child
Does anyone ever get the feeling that SOME small amount of the 'utter sickening horror and outrage' that comes along with this stems from some men feeling a little bit intimidated and uncomfortable with the fact that SOME women would genuinely be fine with this arrangement, in fact some women (men too) are even turned on by the thought of it. I know a couple of intelligent, straight headed women with successful day jobs, who, guess what? love fucking ... strangers, submissively, dominantly, sometimes for money, sometimes not ... happy, well-adjusted, not being secretly oppressed by an imagined patriarchal ghost in the machine ... just love fucking.
Not saying that applies to anyone in the OP story, which is pretty shady, but this type of conversation often has that undercurrent to it.
this is a story about a guy making a fake company on the false premise of financial reward, as a front for HIS OWN sexual predelictions
not arguing about the grimness of this.
there's nothing wrong with wanting sex with strangers
it's a different thing though to want to buy sex as a tax write-off
and again a different other thing to identify as a market opportunity bringing together cash-strapped young women and the type of men who want to buy sex as a tax write-off and take a cut and a blowie in between
When I was uni 'Oxbridge Escorts' was in the news, and students wrote about their dinner dates in London with businessman in the student paper - they all got paid.
Pages 4-5 here:
not because I don't believe this kind of thing goes on but because the company registration is fake and the guy is trying to lure his victim into a trap rather than being ... I dunno ... a discreet professional or whatever
But it doesn't entirely surprise me that in some capacity, this kind of thing does go on somewhere.
Deeply unpleasant all round really.
Pretty much all feminists who are concerned with sex and the sexual realm are STRONGLY FOR creating a culture where women DO have genuine agency and can explore the entirety of their sexuality for their own pleasure.
I know you've not identified this "undercurrent" as something specifically seen in feminist conversations but saying that contrary to w/e opinion you're talking about, these women are "not being secretly oppressed by an imagined patriarchal ghost in the machine" is definitely implying that it is feminists who are saying this, which it a total misrepresentation. What I would say is that representations and popular ideas of what "a submissive woman" is like are really narrow and doesn't actually cover any range of fantasies or the complexity of actually being a sexually submissive, empowered woman. Or the complex interplay of internalised oppression and personal desire. THAT I have a problem with.
On the other hand I entirely agree that paternalistic notions of female sexuality in which women basically DONT HAVE sexuality are the problem. This certainly isn't coming from those of us talking about patriarchy though. [btw patriarchy isn't a ghost or a secret or something imagined; it's a system of oppression]
So I think there is an even more WORRYING TREND of a delusion that feminist discourse is anti- some kinds of sexuality.
perhaps I didn't make this clear: I am levelling it more at those who co-opt an imagined and distorted NOTION they have of feminism in order to mask what is amounts to their own prejudice and sexual anxiety.
You know, the mind reader guy?
Consistently uninspiring performances, but gets the results more often then not.
The man is this story is a cunt and the story is sad and I wish that things like this didn't happen.
but unfortunately I'm on my phone and can't.
so he can have his penis touched AND get paid for it (because he hold their money, and I assume takes a cut, until the sponsor and student say it all went fine)
Also, its well Justin Lee Colins with the whole questionnaire on what they will and won't do.
but I think this whole PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT thing is a huge ploy for the guy to get a free bit of sexy time because his forehead is too shiny to legitimately pull a bird.
There are LOADS of girls out there that are willing to do things or be escorts in return for money. There has been a recent influx in this whole sugar daddy thing where men hire young girls to have on their arm and in return give them money/holidays/clothes/stuff they wouldn't get without the sugar daddy. But thats whats so sickening and worrying about it is that the girls are vunerable and would be pushed into doing something they didn't want to do because they either NEED the money for their tuitions or they are so materialistic that they put their life at risk for a handbag.
just that it'd be pretty easy to run a business like this legitimately, and he isn't doing that, which makes me think it's a scam, and that nothing beyond the "practical assessment" exists.
Its probably the case that many of these 'companies' have popped up all over the place.
KNOW YOUR ROLE
KNOW YOUR HOLE
You've got students using their marketable skills to bring in money, and you've got a guy who's seen a way to make a good business in these tough times, and neither of them are worrying about all those pathetic morals that the nanny state and socialist horrors like the EU keep throwing up to prevent businesses making a profit. Sticking it to the man...and the woman. :-/
Not cool, bro. Not cool.
plenty of girls that didn't seem to have any hang-ups about who they ended up being fucked by, didn't seem like the end of the world then, the only difference is that perhaps it wasn't as premeditated as this and they didn't charge- sorry, didn't get paid in cash is probably a better way of putting that.
I mean, I don't agree with it, but it happens. But the assessor guy in the article should be sacked outright for exploiting his authority.
Seems more like an endeavour to get his knob moist and earn money for doing so at the same time.
Or at least an attempt to get a ride for free.
So he won't be sacked as he is complying with their policies.
is really throwing me off
is really throwing me off.
I'll be nicer in future. Will you?
and that the company is LEGIT that this would be seen as gross misconduct.
No harm in explaining to someone something if they don't understand it rather than just saying 'JFC'
2) i can't imagine how you can read that article and not see that it's a scam
3) i wasn't criticising you for explaining it, just, again, expressing disbelief that someone can read that article and their first reaction is "some girls don't care who they get fucked by...it happens"
about how some people can sometimes not understand something as its silly.
I didn't properly read the article so made assumptions, admittedly assumptions based on how many of the tutors at my uni were getting laid by girls way out of their league, but... soz to you both, thanks for explaining!
Group hug? JAG to meow? amyblue.co.uk
No-one involved in HR could be this evil.
"These guys are businessmen… they get a tax break for offering sponsorship to students but obviously they’re having a bit of fun you know in the bargain… genuinely nice guys, "
it's about how many people say (or have said) yes to this "scheme" which is probably next to none.
Although I haven't read the whole article. Facts? Who needs them.
How many of those people do it willingly because they actively want to rather than they have no choice but to? Probably not very many.
don't see how your argument of "women should have the right to make money through sex"*
*i think it's clear that no woman is ever going to get paid in this particular scheme, but your post suggests that you think that some, no matter how few, will
<<don't see how your argument of "women should have the right to make money through sex" doesn't apply>>
Are you going to pursue me around the boards because you're angry I had a different opinion to you regarding page 3? Yesterday you called me a "proper twat" or something.
I honestly don't want to argue but I feel like I'm having to defend what was a completely valid opinion that I non-hysterically put across in the face of verbal (written) abuse.
Sometimes people have different opinions. It doesn't mean one person is an evil dickweed or an outragious prick. I like to think I'm a reasonable bloke in the most part.
Issues regarding people being forced to go into prostitution to fund their extortionate university fees is completely different to a woman choosing to be a page 3 model. Of course if someone wants to be a prostitute, then whatever, but I don’t think that’s the issue here. The issue is the insidious problems caused by poverty and how people when put in vulnerable or desperate positions, obvs.
Can we let this lie now as I really don’t want to turn into the ranty man trying to defend himself whilst people I’ve never met (actually I have met you once) call me a twat. No aggro.
moker makes point
alcxxk makes counter argument
moker flips the lid
i was bringing up something from a separate thread (which i think is very closely related, but still), so can see why he'd feel victimised.
wasn't trying to be an arsehole, was just trying to make him see the similarities, and maybe think about things in these terms. i'm not very good at not seeming like an arsehole in things like this, though
called you an idiot because i do think that what you were saying in that thread was idiotic. i apologise for offending you, sorry.
i don't see how what you've said about poverty/vulnerability/desperation doesn't apply to glamour modelling, even if on a different scale.
But... I agree that some people get into page 3 through desperation. But lots of women don't. They want to do it.
Anyway, see old thread for endless circular arguments.
Brusma can KISS MY ANUS however :D
Just because a woman claims she wants to get into it doesn't really mean she hasn't been coerced via society as a whole and her upbringing, or because she was let-down by a society that failed to give her other options in life for her career.
Equally just because you're poor doesn't mean you're being exploited if you choose to do it.
In summary I think alcxxk's right to question your acceptance of Page 3 and your stance in this case. I think the two are very much part of the same industry.
to compare people like Linda Lusardi to those who prostitute themselves.
We can't say that all women who are page 3 girl's are someone defective, or jaded or coerced. That's just nto true. So my point stands.
I was being a twat earlier. I'll happily discuss this topic with anyone but I don't want it following me around as if I'm a cunt. That's all I was saying.
But I guess, you live by the sword you die by the sword, so maybe I need to shut up.
you've just said that all women who would sleep with men for money are defective, jaded and coerced.
I'm saying that we can't make any sort of assumptions including taking their own protestations at face value.
Take this example, for instance:
In her first two biographies, Linda Boreman characterizes making the film as a liberating experience; in her third and fourth biographies (written after she had come out with her stories of sexual abuse, rape, and forced prostitution in the porn business), she charges that she did not consent to many of the depicted sexual acts and that she was coerced to perform by her abusive husband, Chuck Traynor, who received $1,250 for her acting. She also claimed that Traynor threatened to kill her, brandishing handguns and rifles to control her.
In 1986, she testified before the Meese Commission that "Virtually every time someone watches that movie, they're watching me being raped." In the Toronto Sun on March 20, 1981 she said that, "It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time." While the other people present on the set did not support the gun charge, both Traynor and Damiano confirmed in interviews that Traynor was extremely controlling towards Boreman and also hit her on occasion. In the documentary Inside Deep Throat it is claimed that bruises are visible on Boreman's body in the movie.
These allegations were cited in the UK Government's Rapid Evidence Assessment on "The evidence of harm to adults relating to exposure to extreme pornographic material" as part of its plans to criminalize possession of what it terms "extreme pornography".
I wonder how many guys who own that film have got rid of it in light of this? Anyway, that's obviously a massively extreme example of a turnaround, but I think as people get older they will reassess things they did as kids and realise they don't necessarily agree with it.
Yeah but I think we're agreeing on the point here - That you can't make assumptions for whatever point of view being held.
It's as if everyone's thinking in their head hmmmmmm I think I'll choose... TODAY to start being outraged by sexual exploitation.
Next month is Povertygapcember.
there's nothing worse than someone who has loads of academic qualifications but no actual real life work experience, at least with this the students involved get a degree, invaluable work experience and their fees paid. This is an excellent scheme and should be encouraged for all female students.
which is the same thing except 1. creepier and 2. the girls actually get money/things, unlike the ones in the article
not sure how much of a 'thing' it is in england but in the U.S it's surprisingly prevalent