Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Content Count

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. @danis: That would be the first time I see someone claiming to like the job without having something to gain from it, and face-to-face I've spoken to ... I think about twenty (never someone trafficked, just people trying to earn living). As I understand it, though, you're also somewhat secured besides the second job, and can afford saying no to unpleasant clients (unpleasant doesn't stand for abusive here, just obnoxious, smelly etc.). What is your personal impression, are those on the job, the ones having no other choices included, who actually enjoy it a minority? As I said earlier, I am for that kind of arrangement which would leave prostitutes legally free of blame, but against it being promoted. Sex is, I feel, one of those things which should *only* be engaged in if all participants want it, not just endured on one part so as to allow the one to buy food for the one's children.
  2. I presume the last two posters are sarcastic (from the smiley and slow clap). @analogize: There's a reason I said 'most' and 'majority' rather than 'all' when I spoke of prostitutes doing their job unwillingly. Do you realize that for every high class callgirl, there are many street-prostitutes who barely make ends meet? The tired- and hopeless-looking (when there are no potential clients on horizon), prematurely aged, usually heavily make-upped women who can sometimes be seen standing on the streets of larger cities? Usually they are not that easy to distinguish (I know more than one case of people mistaking them for hitchhikers; they generally will refuse to get back out of the car unless paid, whether or not the person accepts any service - can't call police either, since who'd believe 'I didn't realize she's a prostitute'?), but if you spot one, please, go and TALK to her. It'll be an eye-opening experience. (Unless they mistake you for potential client - then they will lie whatever they think you might want to hear.) Also, loving sex typically has nothing to do with any of it. It's not like the average prostitute can pick only those partners the one likes. @Kestra: I'll see whether I can find something the next week; I am away from home and doing net-research from my cell is a menace.
  3. Various first- and second-hand accounts, mostly. (So what prostitutes themselves have told.) I have read quite a few good articles on the topic, also, which I figure I could try to find and see whether have English versions later. Especially one stood out, according to which the average street-prostitute doesn't even earn that much, and that's the same more or less everywhere. According to any source I've come across, those of them who are still capable of imagining a different life would gladly do anything else as long as it likewise kept them fed, clothed, warm and dry.
  4. Sorrily, I must note that *even* when we leave trafficking (or being forced into the proffession by others in general) out, the vast majority of prostitutes do not participate in what they do willingly. They put up with it because they see/have/find no other way to make ends meet - get money to buy food and clothes etc. I'd say that in most cases it's not much different from rape - only in case of prostitution, the person has beforehand decided that participation is better than the alternative, be it homelessness, children taken away from them because they've not enough money to feed them or similar. And that's the 'good' kind of prostitution. I would not as much legalise prostition as much as I would decriminalise it in the sense that a prostitute cannot be penalised for having been on the job. No fear of tickets or prison time would hopefully make them more willing to seek help. I personally've no respect for those who buy the service, though.
  5. This very site actually stores warns forever. The warn-meter eventually goes down, but the warning itself stays on your profile indefinitely. It's similar with a large amount, if not most sites. Also, warnings tend to eventually become misleading since they lose context and therefore informativeness once they outlive all other evidence of what exactly happened. (In my case, the warning-notice has both of the quotes I had in the post not included and the thread the partial quotation came from itself is long gone - in the other words, the thing has no context at all. If I had *actually* posted just that without the quotes, I would have agreed with the mod.)
  6. I by principle do not agree with permanent warnings without expiration-dates for minor offenses. Such as when a person manages to acquire two strikes for using sexist language as a 14-year-old, the one should not be liable to get a ban for accidentally paraphrasing oneself five years later when the one didn't even *intend* to offend. Make the warnings disappear -completely- after, say, three years. People *can* reconsider their views, be it in regards to sexism or otherwise, and unless they commited something truly severe, they should not be 'stained for life' for their past opinions. (OT: I had read the rules, and there was/is no proper definition of spam according to which the post of mine based on which I got the warn should have been considered spam; the only point by what it was counted such was the 'contribution to thread' one, and it is hardly an objective criteria. I personally didn't agree with the particular mod's interpretation of the notion, and I admittedly still do not understand why the alternative I was told would not have been spam was any different from what I posted - mere alteration of wording as far as I could tell.)
  7. Actually, even this kind of system distresses me - a person who will feel like climbing into a hole for a simple warning. I've gotten one on this forum (for habitually posting the kind of reply which on a few other forums is not considered spam, but here apparently was ... I did not even know it could be considered spam, spam was/is properly defined nowhere in the rules) and this actively continues to bother me to this day, though it was, I think, over a year ago. For example I know I might end up sounding a bit more aggressive than I intend when I am sleepy or tired - not because I am more irritable, but because I do not realize that what I write can be interpreted as being hostile. In my mind, I am more often than not being completely neutral. Does it mean I might get a warning without getting a chance to explain what I actually meant? The same with being sexist - sometimes, people will read too much into it and label things which were not meant to be offensive as offensive. Sometimes the beginning of the conversation gets lost - there are people about who will do everything they can to subtly agitate someone till the person takes the bait and says something forbidden. Perhaps the person had an exceptionally bad day and just accidentally let something slip. - To that purpose, I am against bans and even permanent warnings for single incidents. If someone went around and purposefully harassed someone, then yes. Then kick them out. But not for a single swearword or a sentence which can be interpreted two ways or 'might offend'.
  8. First actual work before I became passably successful with what I actually wanted to do.
  9. I think GhostChilli meant the "pregnancy from rape is something god wants" argument more specifically, not the pro-life stance in general. In other words, if you insist something should be done because god would prefer it so, not because it benefits humans, it is bringing religion to politics.
  10. Might be just me, but this question for me feels ... somehow far more assuming than outright asking which gender you are. Honestly, I personally strongly prefer being outright asked "excuse me, are you man or a woman?" I agree, though, that if you are in no hurry to get to know which the other person is, there's not much reason to ask. As long as you're speaking to the one, it's just 'you', if there's a need to refer to the one, the one's name can be used. Eventually you'll probably find out what the person considers oneself to be anyway, given you're going to have further contact with the one. (How glad I sometimes are that there are no separate pronouns for he/she/it in my language, just one generic one which is to be used for all singular living beings. Avoids a lot of trouble and embarrassing situations.)
  11. I find that people shouldn't find it offensive when people simply honestly ask them which they are, or initially call them with the wrong pronoun. (The majority of people, after all, are cisgendered, so it is generally logical to assume that the person you are talking to probably is, too. I myself do not know any trans folk face-to-face, though I do know one person who lacks gender-identity.) Unless the other person has a problem with the label you want to carry, there is no reason to take offense. - I frequently get mistaken for a man over the internet myself, simply for how I write and what I do (I am heterosexual woman in a female body). Nothing that a simple "I am actually a she, though" at the bottom of my next post would not solve. Frankly, I find that being politely asked and/or told is the best solution.
  12. Shower is for getting clean, bath is for relaxing. (I don't know about most others, but I always kind of take a brief shower after getting out of bathwater...)
  13. I've said it before and will say it again: being 'feminine' or 'masculine' has nothing to do with gender identity. Gender identity is essentially how your brain is wired to see your body - and if the body does not match the wiring you've got a trans person. It is entirely possible for someone to have female body, like wearing dresses and makeup, and still be a representative of the male gender. Or the other way around.
  14. It's as I said - it will help some get through successfully, it will help others to an extent but not sufficiently, to a third group of people it would give no benefits at all, and to a fourth group of people it might actually end up dealing additional damage, either because the therapist is not compatible with them or because the method itself does not fit them. I've seen all of those scenarios. It is good that you found something which worked out for you, though.
  15. To add to it, therapy is ineffective in more cases than the general public tends to be aware. It will help some, but many it won't help, or wont help much. Thus, advocating therapy - for the children, abused women, et cetera - as the solution falls short. It is one of the things to try, but not the solution which would always work out, and many don't even have the money to try.
  16. ^Are saying more or less the same thing, don't you all think? You got to give people the opportunity to choose what's the best for them personally. @Kestra: That part of Kat's post was a quote from a site which she already told she herself disagrees with.
  17. True - I never insisted it doesn't go both ways. No matter what you decide to eat like, in the end you simply have to get everything your body needs to stay healthy. Hmm... I've no time to skim through the entire thread at the moment, but was your SO the kind of vegetarian who ate eggs? (I myself have a few 'pet chicken', with their own quite sizable hut and adjacent garden within my even larger garden (though they have to be locked in the hut for the month or two-three during which there's snow outside). Since I don't have a rooster, no chicks could ever hatch, but I still get a handful of eggs a day.)
  18. Again, it depends a whole lot on how aware the vegetarian/vegan is of the things s/he is supposed to eat to gain all of the micro and macro elements one needs. If they live under the misconception that sustaining oneself on just cabbage and potatoes will be sufficient, they might indeed end up in a state where they would faint from lack of something essential, e.g. iron-deficiency. If they eat everything they need, however, it won't happen even if they never touch animal products. (Well, or at the very least they won't end up faining because of their diet.) (A bit OT, but I've never fainted either - I'm an omnivore as previously stated, though.)
  19. ...We can only hope that she has met a lot of people who have claimed to make a distinction by race (e.g. they are more likely keep a child of a certain race), and wanted to stress that she is not one of them. (Though I agree - one can't always accurately predict how one would feel in a certain scenario.)
  20. Price, regretfully, pays a great role for poorer families - if we take a family living in borderline poverty, they probably do not have the excess to spare for the selection of vegan products which'd provide them with everything a body needs.
  21. Yes, of course. I've heard of ill-fed children being taken from their parents for feeding them hamburgers the exact same way. As I said in my earlier posts, I know a child can be healthily raised on strictly vegan components, as long as the parent(s) know what they are doing and have the money to buy what's needed for it (having a vegan diet which gives one all of the required nutrients is, at least based on the prices here, a few times more expensive than a decent omnivorous diet). Other than the matter with prices, you simply have to know which plant contains what and how much of each a growing human body needs, and feed your child accordingly. That's all.
  22. I am fairly confident Shiny meant only the cases where the children's parents do not (manage to) provide them with all the nutrients they need to grow up healthy (pay in mind that a growing organism is a bit more sensitive to possible insufficiencies in the diet). It is possible to raise children properly with vegetarian or even vegan components only, but the person must know exactly what s/he is doing. Many people do not do sufficient research / don't have the money to actually buy products which contain the rarer irreplaceable vitamins, amino acids and what have you in sufficient amounts. (And fish are animals too. Personal quirk of mine - I absolutely refuse to acknowledge people who eat fish as vegetarians.)
  23. A bit unrelated, but I once came across a keyboard which, on top of mistyping some letters, also made many dozens of windows spawn up as soon as you clicked any program with the mouse. The owner of the computer already feared that the device had caught a some kind of freak-virus, but switching the keyboard out solved everything. (On closer inspection it seemed that they had poured some kind of drink over it at a point of time.) But yes, I agree with the above - time to buy a new mouse. (Cleaning the sensor/ball would probably help if it was freezing and/or jumping the cursor across the screen, but is unlikely to do so when the problem is with the buttons.)
  24. Omnivore here; never had any moral qualms over eating meat. In the end, all animals die at some point of time, and even vegans, though they don't eat animals, still eat plants, which are also alive. I don't mind other people being vegetarian/vegan, as long as they do not try to force it on other people around them (especially in the scenario Shiny mentioned). I am, however, all for improving the lives of farm animals.
  25. ^Note that I actually largely pointed that out myself. On the subject of whether or not it could cause physical addiction - it is indeed debatable as there are differing opinions on it, though several sources I've seen insist you don't get physical addiction from caffeine, or that those cases are rare/have comparatively mild withdrawal symptoms lasting a few days. As a side note, some types of habitual addiction also seem to have 'withdrawal symptoms'. The general consensus seems to be that even when caffeine can cause actual physical addiction, the instances are by far less frequent and acute than say, addiction to nicotine, which is very prone to causing addiction. Or alcohol, for the matter. I myself appear to be a person who will not get addicted to caffeine at all, and I am not the only one as far as I know. (I can easily drink a half a litre of dark coffee per day for several weeks in the run, and then one day simply forget to make myself some, and not even realize something is off. Or go to hiking with no ability to properly boil water - I also won't miss it much then. And then there are long periods during which I simply do not drink a cup for no particular reason.) - In the end, almost any substance/chemical will kill in large enough dosages. Water, salt, sugar, vitamins... It's often all about moderation and knowing what one personally can or cannot take. (Note that caffeine is the only drug I knowingly allow myself to consume, less than a handful of glassfuls of not-strong alcohol per year at social events not included.) (We probably ought to move onto another thread if we wanted to continue debating on it, though.) _ _ _ Wasn't there some abortificant the Romans used so frequently the plant went extinct?