Delusional beliefs and tendentious grasp of reality

Blame Voyager, since a recent series of posts of his have inspired me to also take on a more umm robust tone in relation to this post.

Getting more discussions going on AdultForum - good news or bad?

There have been recent posts on AF bemoaning the lack of contributions, declining of posts, and also observations of the reverse. Various reasons have been provided, including the clique mentality of some posters, lack of/too much moderation, apathy, and so forth. But to my eyes, if the following samples of "discussions" and the sheer lack of quality of thought, understanding of business realities, and everything else is anything to go by, maybe it's best that we have less "discussions" on there and just leave things as they are, i.e. a place where there's some useful info for punters and workers alike, where some dedicated contributors do add some genuinely interesting insights whilst the rest largely just lurk or contribute little but banter.

Bitching about the DND (Do Not Discuss) List on AF

I really can't improve on Voyager's treatment of this issue, so I invite anyone interested to read his post. I'll just add one point: New Zealand Girls' and AF's extremely own commercial interests-oriented approach is entirely predictable and frankly rather consistent with punters and providers' own largely selfish attitudes towards the industry. This tends to further belie the laughable contentions by the odd forum heroine-wannabe (usually a former or current WL) who insists on contending that this industry is some kind of true profession. Yes, the Law Society and New Zealand Medical Council are to some extent "trade unions" of sorts representing the interests of their own industries but they also do plenty of advocacy and educational work for the general betterment of society and engage in regulatory work to get rid of rogue elements from their industries. They aren't always successful and suspicions (some legitimate; others not) of regulatory practices being driven by an old boys network continue. But they still demonstrate attitudes far and away superior to that held by most punters and providers towards the industry, where seemingly everything is about making a fast buck or getting one's rocks off to maximum effect, screw all consequences for others.

"Age verified" ads on NZG? You've gotta be kidding me.

Recently an AF member suggested that NZG should implement a voluntary system where advertisers can provide proof of age and then be marked out as "age verified" to combat the false advertisers. I wrote a fairly extensive post in reply to argue why this was a bad idea, given the relevant contexts. I won't bore people by linking to it and will provide a quick summary instead.

I opposed that approach mainly because for this kind of verification to work, information as to the advertiser's real identity will have to be supplied either directly to NZG or proved to NZG's satisfaction via some sort of accepted intermediary, e.g. a justice of the peace. When one examines the NZG website, you don't even know the identity of the (presumably) limited liability company behind this business and who the directors/shareholders are. Nobody should be surprised by this in view of the obvious stigma and issues attached with being associated with this industry.

In view of this and the obvious impossibility of knowing the extent to which NZG can (in the financial sense) and will be expected to stand behind its moral and legal obligations to protect such data (in addition to the obvious issue of any providers pursuing proceedings of any sort opening their identities to being made very public), this scheme just reeks of a bad idea. And I think this ought to be obvious to anyone who has had any sort of real world experience of managing business/regulatory risks. Apparently not to a certain poster.

Then there's also the issue that some advertisers have been able to advertise themselves as being of a certain age for many years! Who knew the miracles that being a WL can render!! Frankly, people who make some kind of effort to examine photos carefully to observe obvious photography tricks designed to flatter an advertiser, network a bit with other punters, and just stick to well-reviewed providers, AND who also practice the last ditch defence of walking away when they see obvious cases of false advertising (as opposed to handing over the money and then moaning later) don't need this suggestion. Then there's the issue of whether it makes any meaningful/material difference to any sane punter whether a girl is 20 or 25 (I'll certainly grant that 40 as opposed to an advertised 25 is a big difference). To some extent, some people frankly need to learn to not objectify people as a sexual object based solely on a certain "tick list".

I'll fairly grant one point that a certain well-known WL (who is very intelligent and willing to speak out about issues afflicting the industry for the betterment of all) made in relation to this issue: the major newspapers require advertisers to prove their age, so as to avoid assisting in underage prostitution and she would like to see NZG take a more proactive approach in this regard. But for NZG to credibly do this, I think they will need to be more open to advertisers as to who they are, their data protection policies, and the extent to which they will indemnify advertisers for damages caused to them by loss of confidential information.

And notice how this was an unusual case of someone actually looking past their own nose?

"Can working girls refuse to see a client based on his race?"

Yep, there really is such a thread on AF and it has amazingly generated 10+ pages of discussion. Frankly, puzzlement is the most mild way to describe my reaction to anybody asking this question. Look, prostitution is still a risky activity, for both punters and providers alike. How ANY sane and intelligent person can choose to participate in this industry without actually acquainting themselves with the basics of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (this takes all of about half of hour for anyone of average intelligence) is beyond me.

Incidentally, allow me to state a quick "aside" on why it is so important to read/understand this Act. Take s 22(2) for example - this creates an offence for entering into a contract with a provider under 18 to provide "commercial sexual services" to the client. If you carefully read this section and compare it to, for example, provisions of the Crimes Act, you will note quickly that s 22 does not state that actual knowledge that the service provider is under 18 is required for the client to be convicted under s 22(2).

This is backed up by actual case law. In other words, s 22(2) creates what is called a strict liability offence where you are liable to be convicted (and named and shamed by the media) for paying to fuck a girl that for all intents and purposes look to you to be over 18 but is in fact underaged. So I hope this will serve to deter some of the men with all their virginal fantasies from seeking out "just legal" teenagers - it's just not fucking worth it.

Back to the issue under this heading. Aside from the law, one has to ask why any emotionally mature and intelligent adult would want to debate the rights and wrongs of someone wanting or not wanting to fuck them for money. Okay, if someone blankly refuses to see clients of X race, that probably makes this person an uninformed bigot. But the sex industry doesn't exist primarily for people's moral and intellectual betterment. Some of the people who get all offended by girls' refusals to see them will probably also loudly complain about any perceived or actual "starfish" behaviour by providers and instances of bad service. If that's so, why go and potentially try to force yourself on an unwilling provider (or even think about so doing) and almost guaranteeing yourself a shit outcome?

One last point on the importance of knowing the law: it amazes me how often I hear (from talking in the room and also providing advice at various community organisations as a volunteer) of working girls doing NOTHING in terms of addressing their tax obligations, e.g. not paying incoming tax and not registering for GST when they are obvious over the registration threshold. Many of these people are the same sort that supposedly care a lot about their discretion. Let's see how much discretion you are going to have when the IRD wakes up and starts taking notice of this rather easy to fry industry where many participants advertise only with one place and hold mobile phone accounts with (likely) one of three companies. I am not saying this out of some moral indignation over the tax issue, since I'll be the first to admit (despite being a corporate employee) that your average corporate does far more tax rorting in a year than likely all providers combined. Seriously, I genuinely would like you to be able to stay discrete.

A sad reality

My own view is that the above samples amply demonstrate the fundamental reality disconnect that many people involved in this industry suffer from. Fixing this will involve far more than people just pretending to be nicer to each other on an internet forum.....