Happy Ending Massages

[Levelfive]

No, in fact it says it's written by a prostitute. But it was already confirmed, that the blog was written under authority of her pimps as a response to all the attention forced prostitution got in media.

Why don't you try to find the English translation of Renate van der Zee's research. Let's see how you feel about their average hourly wage of a whopping €8,- or about the fact that some of them don't even have a salary, but have to ask their pimps for money and explain why they need it.

You call quoting random articles critical research and call official sources bullshit? You're in denial, buddy and I can only imagine why.

The shit you've linked and attempted to cite is so transparently agenda'd and flawed and made up, which you didn't notice because you didn't ever bother to examine any of it, while your objections to what I've linked boil down to this (and some arguments you've invented on my behalf):

*Assuming it was written by procurers (which you've also provided no evidence for, as usual), does that magically change the number of prostitutes who were actually interviewed for the KLPD report you've accepted completely uncritically?

*The "British document" you dismissed (because you thought it was British, seriously?) was written by Dina Siegal "The author is Professor of Criminology at the Willem Pompe Institute, Utrecht University, Netherlands.

*I never said the number 20,000 was low--in fact, I literally said the number was "alarming"--fortunately, it turns out it's also imaginary, like the basis for your purported objections to prostitution.

"And I can only imagine why." Maybe you resorting to a weak, cheap attempt to malign my character is a sign you've realized you really are talking out of your ass, so at least we've established that.

[Wildtree]

You're literally scum if you take use of that.

The OP question asks about happy ending massages....
it did not mention the act of prostitution.
Happy ending massages are - or at least should be - a stable part of pretty much every couple's sex life.

And to address the other aspect, there's this:

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal.
Why isn't selling fucking legal?
You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?
I can't follow the logic on that one at all!
Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world.
In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people!
In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm!
Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it...

[Deleted]

The OP question asks about happy ending massages....
it did not mention the act of prostitution.
Happy ending massages are - or at least should be - a stable part of pretty much every couple's sex life.

And to address the other aspect, there's this:

"Happy ending" is prostitution.

[Wildtree]

"Happy ending" is prostitution.

No...... happy ending is a massage that ends with an orgasm.

[Deleted]

No...... happy ending is a massage that ends with an orgasm.

No, it isn't. It's paying for someone to jerk you off after getting a massage. It's not something couples do, unless you pay your wife/gf for massaging and jerking you off.

[Wildtree]

No, it isn't. It's paying for someone to jerk you off after getting a massage. It's not something couples do, unless you pay your wife/gf for massaging and jerking you off.

Sorry my dear..... You are a bit delusional here...
A happy ending massage is exactly what I said it is, a massage that ends with an orgasm.
It is only - much like many other sexual practices - part of the services offered in the job field of prostitution.
By YOUR logic, intercourse is prostitution.. Makes you a whore every time you fuck with someone.
But that's not how it goes.

[Deleted]

Sorry my dear..... You are a bit delusional here...

Nope, I'm just using the contemporary definition of it. Everyone knows what people mean when they say "happy ending", except you it seems.

[Kourvith]

No, it isn't. It's paying for someone to jerk you off after getting a massage. It's not something couples do, unless you pay your wife/gf for massaging and jerking you off.

Personally I'm not using such services because it kills the charm.

But, once again if it only comes to a money taboo :
What's the huge difference between paying for an agreed sex intercourse, and investing money for a new shiny costume/dress, or offering a gift, a drink to a complete stranger, to maximize chances to seduce, i.e get laid (in a club, a bar, or even at your workplace when you have a new crush) ? What's more hugely immoral with the former ? Everybody did the latter once in their life. Money is a mandatory step to reach our goals, it's just a different way to reach it.

p.s : emphasis on "complete stranger", couples don't belong to my argument

[Deleted]

No...... happy ending is a massage that ends with an orgasm.

How is selling sexual acts not a form of prostitution?

[Deleted]

The shit you've linked and attempted to cite is so transparently agenda'd and flawed and made up, which you didn't notice because you didn't ever bother to examine any of it, while your objections to what I've linked boil down to this (and some arguments you've invented on my behalf):

*Assuming it was written by procurers (which you've also provided no evidence for, as usual), does that magically change the number of prostitutes who were actually interviewed for the KLPD report you've accepted completely uncritically?

*The "British document" you dismissed (because you thought it was British, seriously?) was written by Dina Siegal "The author is Professor of Criminology at the Willem Pompe Institute, Utrecht University, Netherlands.

*I never said the number 20,000 was low--in fact, I literally said the number was "alarming"--fortunately, it turns out it's also imaginary, like the basis for your purported objections to prostitution.

"And I can only imagine why." Maybe you resorting to a weak, cheap attempt to malign my character is a sign you've realized you really are talking out of your ass, so at least we've established that.

That wasn't the article I dismissed, but you knew that already . Interesting you mention Dina Siegal though, since she interviewed a whopping total of 30 prostitutes with whom she allegedly developed a "heartfelt" and "intimate" relationship.

Dina's thesis (in 2013) never was that most prostitutes aren't victim of human trafficking. Or that most chose this path on their own volition. It was mainly to criticise Utrecht's policy which didn't distinguish the two and considered any kind of prostitution abuse of women - which affected every single one of them and obviously, is wrong. The rulings were reversed. Dina also failed to mention the data she collected from the GGD and the ministry of justice. Why? Because it was in direct conflict with the data she gathered from her newly acquired 'friends', or so critics believe.

You would've known this if you actually read it.

I don't know where you're from, but it's clear you have no idea of the real world scenario.

Now I have a simple question for you: What are you arguing exactly? What is your message? That forced prostitution isn't as common as people say?

[Levelfive]

That wasn't the article I dismissed, but you knew that already . Interesting you mention Dina Siegal though, since she interviewed a whopping total of 30 prostitutes with whom she allegedly developed a "heartfelt" and "intimate" relationship.

Dina's thesis (in 2013) never was that most prostitutes aren't victim of human trafficking. Or that most chose this path on their own volition. It was mainly to criticise Utrecht's policy which didn't distinguish the two and considered any kind of prostitution abuse of women - which affected every single one of them and obviously, is wrong. The rulings were reversed. Dina also failed to mention the data she collected from the GGD and the ministry of justice. Why? Because it was in direct conflict with the data she gathered from her newly acquired 'friends', or so critics believe.

You would've known this if you actually read it.

I don't know where you're from, but it's clear you have no idea of the real world scenario.

Now I have a simple question for you: What are you arguing exactly? What is your message? That forced prostitution isn't as common as people say?

You quote some British document saying forced prostitution in The Netherlands is largely a myth

That quote you're referring to was taken directly from Dina Siegal's paper. If you actually meant something else but didn't read closely enough to know better, don't color me surprised. Interesting (and yet true to form) that you'd criticize her for interviewing 30 prostitutes, though, while accepting without question a report that interviewed 2.

In any case, I'm criticizing you for the same reasons: your inability or refusal to distinguish between forced prostitution and voluntary prostitution, as well as your utter refusal to deal with any facts you don't like. Trafficking is a completely separate issue that should be dealt with as such and conflating the two as you keep doing (90%! 20,000! are nonsense numbers invented by anti-prostitution zealots and repeated by a breathless public) diverts resources and actually makes the lives of prostitutes more difficult, which is not trivial. You've given me no reason to believe you'd suddenly, actually read something contrary to your entrenched worldview that you prefer to "inform" with nonsense, but maybe someone else will read it: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/merc...an-trafficking

"The rhetoric used when introducing the bill also does this, through employing a language that claims that people (particularly women) sell themselves or are sold as commodities, rather than simply selling a service. Under this line of thinking, it is considered impossible that sex workers might retain any personal autonomy.

Human trafficking certainly exists, although not as frequently as it is often claimed (studies that claim high numbers of trafficking incidents often similarly conflate it with sex work). The fact that it happens less often does not mean that we should care less or believe that the occurrences of it are somehow less horrible -- but it does justify recognizing when the scope of it has been unjustly stretched beyond what human trafficking actually is.

The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (or Trafficking Protocol) defines human trafficking as:

“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs….”

Human trafficking doesn’t always include border migration, and the exploitation isn’t always about the selling and buying of sex, but the consistent elements are that one person ends up controlling another, via unethically-obtained consent or no consent at all, for the purposes of exploitation.

These circumstances sometimes do occur with sex work, but they aren't inherent to it. Sex work does not always have elements of coercion, of control, or of vulnerability. Sex work actually includes a variety of trades, including street work, escorting, stripping, lap dancing, professional domination, massage, survival sex, porn, and more, making it difficult to generalize about it in an absolute fashion.[...]Worse, using the term “human trafficking” interchangeably with sex work actually confuses the issue significantly, diverting funds and energy away from where it's needed and toward combating legitimate sex work as well. This makes it impossible to get clear and realistically comparative data, and reallocates funding away from effective anti-trafficking initiatives. It undermines the fight against trafficking and tarnishes the organizations that try to do the needed work, making it much harder to address actual human trafficking. And it has allowed far right moralists who are more interested in controlling peoples’ sexual habits seductively hijack the dialogue that once considered womens' autonomy and choice to be important."

Or: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-exploitation

"Ending "trafficking" is perhaps the most well-known, well-resourced, well-loved social cause of the 21st century that doesn't require its proponents' agreement on what it even is they wish to end. What is "trafficking"? How many people are "trafficked"? Look beyond the surface of the fight against trafficking, and you will find misleading statistics and decades of debate over laws and protocols. As for the issue itself, the lack of agreement on how to define "trafficking" hasn't slowed campaigners' fight. Rather, defining trafficking has become their fight.

Over the last 15 years, anti-trafficking campaigns have ascended to the most visible ranks of feminist, faith and human rights missions, enjoying support from organizations as ideologically unneighborly as women's rights NGO Equality Now and the conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation. The dominant contemporary understanding of trafficking took hold only around the turn of the century, driven in significant part by the advocacy of women's rights groups who sought to redefine trafficking specifically as the "sexual exploitation" of women and children. Indeed, this is the definition that groups like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women succeeded in getting written into the first international laws (pdf) related to trafficking. When many people hear about "trafficking", this is the picture that comes to mind, and it is one that women's rights groups – and, increasingly, evangelical Christian groups like Shared Hope International, International Justice Mission and Love146 – use explicitly in their campaigning.

[...]

Accurate statistics on trafficking are difficult to come by, which does not stop some anti-trafficking groups from using them anyway. For instance, Shared Hope International, which is aggressively pursuing anti-trafficking legislation in 41 US states, claims "at least 100,000 juveniles are victimized" each year in the United States, and possibly as many as 300,000 – a figure that has been cited (repeatedly) by CNN. In truth, the figure is an estimate from a University of Pennsylvania report from 2001 (pdf) of how many youth are "at-risk" of what its authors call "commercial sexual exploitation of a child", based on incidences of youth homelessness. But it was not a count of how many youth are victims of "trafficking'", or involved in the sex trade.

Prostitution is often conflated with "trafficking" in these statistics, in part because the definition of trafficking that has been pushed to prominence refers exclusively to "sexual exploitation". In fact, this conflation has found its way into the collection of data: according to a report from the Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women:

"[W]hen statistics on trafficking are available, they usually refer to the number of migrant or domestic sex workers, rather than cases of trafficking.""

Sound arguments don't require made up data, and what you are engaging in--promulgating myths, repeating faulty, outright false, and deliberately misleading data--actively does harm to people whose well being you are claiming to be concerned about. You should stop.

[Deleted]

snip.

You are utterly and completely blind.

KLPD anti-prostitution zealots? They're protecting them.

GGD anti-prostitiution zealots? They're protecting them.

"your inability or refusal to distinguish between forced prostitution and voluntary prostitution"

Inability? This has been my message from the start, which (again) you would've known, if you'd actually read what I wrote, without knee-jerking into a primary, emotional reaction, like so many on forums do. I said on more than one occasion, that I am all for volutary prostition as long as we can guarantee the girls' safety.

Keep quoting blogs, or articles that explain the obvious differences between trafficking and prostitution, which somehow make the two mutually exclusive, in your skewed view. Keep calling it a myth when it's actually a big issue in a country where prostitution is legal. Keep telling yourself that "most girls are fine" so you can justify your habits. Keep telling yourself that everyone else is wrong and you're right because you live in a shiny pink bubble.

Heleen Driessen, manager at 'coördinatiepunt mensenhandel' and 'Prostitutie en Gezondheidscentrum' and also intermediary between similar organistions in Hungary (where many prostitutes in The Netherlands come from) told the NOS in an interview:

"Many people don't think these girls are exploited. They are oblivious to the fact that they actually have pimps. This mentality trickled among the ranks of many a prostitute to the point that they themselves do not experience the way they're treated as abuse. For them, it's become normal to yield most of their income to their pimps or "boyfriend". They stopped questioning their motives and in the end they take relief in the fact that the few hundred euro they make in a week, is more than what they would ever earn in their own village."

Here I am, quoting politicians, acknowledged Dutch journalists, munipicial health organisations, police forces, phycisians, while you are quoting blogs and websites. It's saddening.

Good job at answering my simple questions, by the way.

[Levelfive]

You cannot reasonably claim to be in favor of voluntary prostitution while also claiming and believing that 90% of prostitutes are forced--you hardly believe voluntary prostitution exists. You literally quoted something that claims prostitutes who have the audacity to think they're making choices for themselves are ALSO being "forced" but are just too stupid to know it. And I very specifically answered your questions, as well as linked peer reviewed research that you also ignored. You refuse to read, you refuse to investigate or check sources, you cite and parrot crap that's been long since debunked, and you display an almost belligerent aversion to facts and data that say anything aside from "90%!" and "obviously women don't choose to be prostitutes!" Your posts are like a case study in projection, to which I'll also attribute your rather bizarre and desperate ad hominem.

[shadowmouse]

@mascarpwn

Just an observation -- I don't live in Amsterdam. I'm sure this is a fascinating debate for those who do, and I realize that you believe that you are a world traveler, but you're largely derailing the thread for a private debate that is at best at a tangent to the original question.

When I want to get my fill of Dutch politics, I'll move there.

[Darsithis]

I have to admit, I've always wanted to try one. I've never had a massage. I don't like being touched by anyone.

[Deleted]

@mascarpwn

Just an observation -- I don't live in Amsterdam. I'm sure this is a fascinating debate for those who do, and I realize that you believe that you are a world traveler, but you're largely derailing the thread for a private debate that is at best at a tangent to the original question.

When I want to get my fill of Dutch politics, I'll move there.

You're right and I apologise. I'll say no more on the matter.

[skatblast]

This thread is more cancerous than the political ones lol. Never change mmo-champ

[Belize]

I have to admit, I've always wanted to try one. I've never had a massage. I don't like being touched by anyone.

Massages are great.

Women has a more delicate touch, so it's better to relax, but personally, I prefer men, mostly because their hands are bigger, and stronger, so you get a deeper tissue massage, without even having to pay the extra for it!

[shadowmouse]

I don't like being touched by anyone.

I have chronic pain, and quite a few old injuries. That means that I spend quite a bit of time in massage places. There are many different styles of massage and some of them are probably impersonal enough to let you get comfortable. Let whoever is going to work on you know that you are uncomfortable being touched and they may be able to suggest different styles of massage to suit your health and such.

[Deleted]

I have chronic pain, and quite a few old injuries. That means that I spend quite a bit of time in massage places. There are many different styles of massage and some of them are probably impersonal enough to let you get comfortable. Let whoever is going to work on you know that you are uncomfortable being touched and they may be able to suggest different styles of massage to suit your health and such.

In your case I would advise on consulting an acknowledged (with degree) physiotherapist. Chronic pain and old or new injuries, are no laughing matter. Also, you wouldn't have to worry about lack of professionalism.

Depending on your residence, health insurance covers the costs.