Helen [Archive] - Skymouse Panty Wetting Message Board

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Sun, 20 Feb 05, 12:11 AM

...if they had a connection, and wanted to prevent something bad happening, they'd have contacted me directly instead of posting an anonymous message on the message board of a different site.

Sky, I think you might be missing the point slightly. I agree that it's not very likely that the poster had any real connection with the TV company, but, from the way the message was phrased, it didn't seem that its author was actually truly concerned about the wellbeing of anyone considering appearing on the programme. It could be paraphrased more like a nonchalant "by the way, you do realise you'll probably end up looking stupid, don't-cha, buddy?" sort of sentiment.

I'm not trying to stick up for this person at all, but he can't be discredited just by saying that, if genuine, he would have contacted you. His tone was quite passive/aggressive, in the same way someone might say "oh, so you're going to disable all your anti-virus software and go to that porn site with all the pop-ups? Good luck with that!" Cynical concern, perhaps?

LonelyGuy

Sun, 20 Feb 05, 1:05 AM

oh my poor topic showing my pee affection for the beautiful Helen :cry: :cry:

Sky, excuse my American, but fuck the haters, you run a very good enterprise, don't let someone elses stupidity get in the way :wink:

oh, and if you could, could I get an autograph of Helen, Natalie, Samantha, and Autumn :P :P

Ape

Sun, 20 Feb 05, 7:15 AM

What annoys me most is that in refusing to condemn them as 'just a dirty slut' as I'm sure they'd like to, and refusing to believe women would participate because they enjoy it jsut as much as men, they end up denying them even the respect of being a slut who at least knowns her own mind and make it sound like "no woman who knows what she's doing would do that, so she must be too daft to know what she's doing". Whatever happened to the old days of "Women's Liberation"?

I suspect if you asked any "Women's Liberation" veteran, they would explain about the male hierarchy that still dominates society and how it operates, and they would question whether women "enjoy it just as much as men" when the women always want payment for their services? As for any comments about whether the women are "sluts", perhaps they wouldn't use that phrase because of:

a) it's negative connotations (why do the women need to be condemned - whether it is their choice or they are being exploited, in neither situation is it THEIR fault, nor are they doing anything wrong, so why do they need to be condemned?)

b) men like you use it, and put a negative spin on it. What would be empowering about using such a word?

Val

Sun, 20 Feb 05, 11:07 PM

I'm not sure what you mean about 'men like me'. 'Slut' is a word I tend to use more of men with contemptuous attitudes to women they have sex with as much as women contemptuous of me. As for Women's Lib veterans, I'm sure some would pull the old trick of "if they want to be aid they can't enjoy it", ignoring this is true of all work. Older ones would probably remember that sexual freedom from precisely this kind of knowing what was best for them is where they started. Unfortunately the fantasy 'patriarchy' had the effect of denying women's equal responsibility, and along with it ability to change things. If men run the show, then women are powerless so might as well rot. That is why I have no time for later feminists and neither do older or much younger ones.

I suspect if you asked any "Women's Liberation" veteran, they would explain about the male hierarchy that still dominates society and how it operates, and they would question whether women "enjoy it just as much as men" when the women always want payment for their services? As for any comments about whether the women are "sluts", perhaps they wouldn't use that phrase because of:

a) it's negative connotations (why do the women need to be condemned - whether it is their choice or they are being exploited, in neither situation is it THEIR fault, nor are they doing anything wrong, so why do they need to be condemned?)

b) men like you use it, and put a negative spin on it. What would be empowering about using such a word?

Val

Sun, 20 Feb 05, 11:11 PM

I omitted: sexual women do not need to be condemned but the fact of calling them 'sex objects' or 'explaining' them as only doing what men direct implies belief in people who think that way that women cannot do these things by choice and need explanation for what is presented as 'degrading'. In my view that kind of Andrea Dworkin feminist has exactly the same attitude as any Victorian matriarch or paterfamilias but has convinced herself of her own hypocrisy that she is really caring about the modern equivalent of the poor little dear' 'soul'.

[quote="Ape"]
a) it's negative connotations (why do the women need to be condemned - whether it is their choice or they are being exploited, in neither situation is it THEIR fault, nor are they doing anything wrong, so why do they need to be condemned?)

quote]

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Mon, 21 Feb 05, 12:02 AM

that kind of Andrea Dworkin feminist has exactly the same attitude as any Victorian matriarch(y)

Dworkin had that kind of feminism beaten into her.

Further discussion will send this onto the off-topic board, because I'm sure there are not many of us who come here for this kind of exchange.

DavidEngland99

Mon, 21 Feb 05, 12:00 PM

I think that religious people, politicians, feminists, and some medical people can demonstrate a strange anti-sex reaction. As you say, they like to portray all women sex workers as victims, as though no woman ever enjoyed sex except with her husband, and in bed. I actually used to believe what I read - that fetish behaviour was exclusively male. (Kate - are you certain you are female!)

I am not saying that many women are not victims - the poor women who are smuggled into this country and forced into prostitution are a terrible example, but there is nothing special about sex that automatically makes women victims. From time to time you see escort girls interviewed on TV. By some strange loophole in the law escort agencies seem to be able to sell sex legally, but many of the escort girls come across as well adjusted bubbly personalities. Some even say that they enjoy sex with some of their clients.

Imagine how the anti-sex lobby would describe Sky - a man who shamlessly degrades women to satisfy his perverted lusts and make money......... - it is quite amazing what a grip these people have on society, even in the 21st century!

David

Val

Mon, 21 Feb 05, 7:56 PM

"There's no prude like reformed whore" I think people often carry their deepest convictions with them even though they turn against their original obvious expression of them. Good examples are Hitler ashamed of having a half-Jewish illigetimate father and Aleister Crowley brought up in a sect of the Exclusive Plymouth Brethren so exclusive it looks as if only his family belonged to it, told he was the Beast 666 by his mother, so went on to declare himself The Beast 666 come to replace the Old Ways - but every bit as intolerant and egotistical as his original religion.

Ooze

Sun, 1 May 05, 8:21 PM

While skimming through this topic I came upon Val's statement:

Good examples are Hitler ashamed of having a half-Jewish illigetimate father

The mystery concerning Adolf Hitler's grandfather (Alois' father) has spawned a multitude of theories that range from possible to preposterous. Whenever beginning this discussion, we should realise that we can only speculate about this man's identity because the truth rested with Maria Schicklgruber (Hitler's mother), and as far as we know, she took this information to the grave with her in 1847.

There is no known historical basis for the somewhat suspect speculation that Adolf's grandfather was a Jew. The origin of this speculation is not from the most savoury or reliable of sources, to say the least!

Ooze

Val

Sun, 1 May 05, 10:38 PM

The historical background is that Maria Schickelgruber was a maid with one of the minor Rothschilds and left pregnant. Shortly after, she married Hiedler but it looks as if her husband's brother, adopted and legitimised Alois so it's not likely he was the husband's child. There's some problem with the name too. It's Hiedler or Heitler but the priet's writing was so bad it became mistaken for Hitler. Or so says the official version. It's quite possible thathe changed it for numerological reasons since they were all up their ears in the Thule Society and other occult weirdness.

Ape

Mon, 2 May 05, 8:24 AM

I am not saying that many women are not victims - the poor women who are smuggled into this country and forced into prostitution are a terrible example, but there is nothing special about sex that automatically makes women victims. From time to time you see escort girls interviewed on TV. By some strange loophole in the law escort agencies seem to be able to sell sex legally, but many of the escort girls come across as well adjusted bubbly personalities. Some even say that they enjoy sex with some of their clients.

How many is 'some'?

You say there is nothing special about sex that makes women victims, but surely it is THEIR sex that DOES make it special. Why are there so many female escorts and prostitutes compared to male? Why is it that nearly every pimp is male? Why is it so seldom men that get trafficked for sex? There obviously is SOMETHING special about the situation because there is such an imbalance of power. Maybe it is because men are happy to pay for sex as compared to women, maybe it is because we still live in a world where the power is in predominantly male hands - both in the underworld and in the overworld.

In any case, for every bubbly contented female escort, I can show you many more extremely distressed prostitutes, callgirls and escorts. Don't kid yourself that just because SOME women are ok, all are. Most women do not enjoy being forced to sell their bodies.

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Mon, 2 May 05, 6:30 PM

...for every bubbly contented female escort, I can show you many more extremely distressed prostitutes, callgirls and escorts. Don't kid yourself that just because SOME women are ok, all are. Most women do not enjoy being forced to sell their bodies.

I would have thought that that was common knowlegde and common sense. As for "Why are there so many female escorts and prostitutes compared to male?"; isn't there a very simple answer to that, too? Same reason there are lots more porn mags and vids showing women's bodies - so many more men want that material because of the chemicals released by those jiggly things underneath their penises.

Val

Mon, 2 May 05, 11:13 PM

Some would have said women are traditionally repressed not to take an interest in pornography and also to sell sex in terms of men working for them. It doesn't seem to work that way because all the supposed liberation only seems to have made some women feel readier to speak out against sexual freedom. Then those might be the ones most repressed in the first place.

Personallly I don't see that being forced to perform any service or get beaten up is particularly better just because it's sweat shop and not prostitution. Women can make money as escorts and prostitutes or just plain strippers, so a lot will because it's easier than earning far less for hard work hard to find. Men don't have that freedom because if women do want services, traditional prudery ensures any number of men to choose from. It is still more customary for men to pay for women than the other way round and it looks like the more the woman earns, the more she expects the man to pay, where more ordinary working women expect to share more.

It's an enormous oversimplification fitting in with sexist demonisations to imagine all bad male pimps, all helpless female victims. There's some of all and plenty of amateurs just like anything else, and nobody ever imagined that ex-working Madams became kinder to their girls because they'd been one!

Ther's probably a practical point too that many men see sex as intercourse relief and that's it. I remember one programme where a Parisian prostitute boasted of her 4-minute 'turn-round rate'. (So much for Frecnh eroticism!) That might leave a man emotionally entirely unsatisfied but he'll never know because he probably has no idea what emotional and sensual satisfaction are. I don't think it's possible for a woman to divorce her satisfactions so easily despite the efforts of vibrator promoters as all the fun without the hassle of relationship. Women just aren't going to pay for an experience that's more likely to leave them cold. They do pay gigolos of course for attention.

GregSmith85

Wed, 4 May 05, 5:53 AM

Back on topic:

How did all of this go? And what television company chose to broadcast it and why?

And Hellen is great, always been one of my favourites. What accent does she have?

Ape

Wed, 4 May 05, 8:59 AM

Personallly I don't see that being forced to perform any service or get beaten up is particularly better just because it's sweat shop and not prostitution..

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the 'service' requiring insertion of someone else's body parts into a woman's? Maybe you also think rape is just the same as any other form of physical abuse, but I suspect most women would disagree with you on that too.

I dunno, Val, why don't you try thinking about being a garage attendant providing a service as compared to having ten cocks up your ass every day? No difference?

Ape

Wed, 4 May 05, 9:03 AM

It's an enormous oversimplification fitting in with sexist demonisations to imagine all bad male pimps, all helpless female victims.

And yet...

nearly all pimps ARE male

nearly all victims of sex trafficking ARE female

nearly all prostitutes ARE female

So...

it is also an enormous distortion of the truth to deny that reality. There may well be SOME women involved in the sex trade who aren't victims, and there may well be SOME men who are, but they are the exceptions not the norm. Let's at least deal with some semblance of reality rather than a mythical land where women have made informed choices and men are kindly helping them do so!

Val

Wed, 4 May 05, 11:11 PM

Of course there are differences and they account for why the generation of women screaming about 'male sexual repression' preventing them from screwing around equally as men was followed by one screaming 'male sexual repression' for expecting women to behave equally with men. It still returns to Germaine Greer's observation that when it comes to women given the choice between being raped andhaving their nose cut off, there's a lot more raped than noseless. 'Fate worse than death' is not a simple view transferable from one rationale to another.

Crazyhorse

Fri, 13 May 05, 6:23 PM

Sorry Ape, but I cant see why you have such an obsession with posts that repeatedly state the blidingly obvious.

nearly all pimps ARE male

nearly all victims of sex trafficking ARE female

nearly all prostitutes ARE female

Do you think we dont know this, or the reasons behind it.

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the 'service' requiring insertion of someone else's body parts into a woman's? Maybe you also think rape is just the same as any other form of physical abuse, but I suspect most women would disagree with you on that too.

I dunno, Val, why don't you try thinking about being a garage attendant providing a service as compared to having ten cocks up your ass every day? No difference?

And what has this rubbish to do with a decent argument?

I know it is a typical way for an aggressive, ignorant, unreconstructed male to try and continue a discussion that has left him well behind in the intelligence stakes, but I would have thought you were above this level.

I suspect if you asked any "Women's Liberation" veteran,

What I hate is that people find it necessary to put womens liberation in inverted commas, as if the movement is somehow alien to normal civilisation. You might like to explain to us all, just what your problem is with women trying to gain equal power/representation/pay/treatment, to men.

Ape

Sat, 14 May 05, 4:07 PM

LOL.

Crazyhorse, you seem to have such a negative image of me that you have completely misunderstood my post. The short answer to your points is "read the fucking thread properly" The longer version:

1. Because Val never sees it (the blindingly obvious)

2. No, I think VAL doesn't know this or the reasons behind it - in fact, it is plainly obvious if you read his posts that he doesn't.

3. Ummm... because I am trying to get through to an aggressive, ignorant, unreconstructed male.

4. WELL DONE. You have finally figured VAL out. Now go mouth off against him. You can even use the same words!

LOL, this reminds me of all the people who laid into Chris Morris for promoting paedophilia when all he was doing was laying into society's attitudes etc... were you one of those, too, Crazyhorse?

skymouse

Sat, 14 May 05, 5:50 PM

it is also an enormous distortion of the truth to deny that reality. There may well be SOME women involved in the sex trade who aren't victims [...]but they are the exceptions not the norm. Let's at least deal with some semblance of reality rather than a mythical land where women have made informed choices

Your summary contains a mixture of truth and deception.

It is universally agreed that there are vast swathes of the "sex trade" in which women face a very sorry condition. We hardly need to remind ourselves of examples.

On the other hand, the use of the phrase "sex trade" for such a disparate range of different activities is very mischievous. If my web site business, or that of other webmasters or photographers that I'm familiar with, is lumped in with the "sex trade", then we're starting to treat some widely differing activities with misleading imprecision. Some of the facile comments that are made about models ("they're only doing it because they have no choice", "they are being exploited by men", "they are unhappy victims", etc.) are evidence of this imprecision.

What can be more degrading or insulting to people than to declare that their free, intelligent choices are illusory and forced on them?

SM

Ape

Sat, 14 May 05, 7:00 PM

What can be more degrading or insulting to people than to declare that their free, intelligent choices are illusory and forced on them?

I wasn't actually referring to your site in that response, Sky, though I cannot help finding it ironic that you thought I was.

But as you've posed the questions, here's the answer.

Who declared them free and who declared them intelligent? Themselves? How do you know? Would they tell you, their paymaster, if they didn't consider themselves to be making a free choice?

Would it be degrading and insulting to say that young teenagers who sign up to join the armed forces are deluded and being forced? And yet... we know that the military cannon fodder ranks are full of teenagers from poor backgrounds with poor qualifications who get slaughtered in Iraq. They think they made a choice, they think they made an intelligent choice (I accept that maybe the situation they are in, as are your models, that maybe it WAS the most intelligent choice, in the same way that a girl will not refuse to go with a man pointing a loaded gun at them in Bulgaria). But is it really degrading to THEM or is it rather degrading and insulting to society at large that turns a blind eye, or the people with the real power in the situation - consumers and manufacturers?

Yes, they may THINK they have made a free choice, but in reality they have been constrained by the society in which they live, where their choices ARE limited and they may THINK their choice is intelligent.

Maybe it is degrading and insulting, but it's still true - their freedom is illusory, their choice is limited. Not to the same extent as a girl who has been trafficked, of course, but nor is it a completely different sphere.

I am amazed Sky that you persist in your portrayal that your business is like any other, as though it has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with using female bodies for mostly men to slaver over and that there is no pressure on the women whom you employ.

Of course you are not the same as the violent abusive man in Bulgaria who kidnaps, abuses and effectively holds hostage some poor young girl. But neither are you removed from that spectrum completely. You're just the opposite end. This is not a tea shop for old ladies you're running, Sky. It's a porn site. You make money from women's bodies.

What are you saying, that only violence can degrade women? That it is only when a woman has sex with a man under duress that they are degraded? That all women apart from forced prostitutes are free? It's points on a scale...

Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

Val

Sat, 14 May 05, 8:37 PM

What is your hangup about women and sex? Nobody is entirely free or can be. There are many sexual services that do not require intercourse. There are women on this board quite freely giving their accounts of sexual thrills exactly the same as the men. do you imagine Kate and Holly in some way 'degraded' by giving sexual 'confessions' equal with men? You are the 'unreconstructed sexist man'. I have always spoken for women as equals. That means in some cases equally as vicious as man (though most women I know would say more so) and in some cases men equally as exploited. You remind me of earnest Victorian do-gooders telling prostitutes to be ashamed of earning good money to better themselves before packing them off to slave in a factory or as maids! What makes sex any better or worse than any other trade, and why specifically for women? It does surprise me how much less women care about sex than men considering how much more intimate it is for them, but a lot have been trained to be sexless. On the other hand, a lot of women also enjoy being looked at and get a sense of power out of it that in a man they'd condemn as imagining himself God's Gift to women, James Bondery. Women are much more brought up to take pride in themselves and expect men to be be attracted to them for what they are. So why not make money out of it?

skymouse

Sat, 14 May 05, 9:57 PM

What can be more degrading or insulting to people than to declare that their free, intelligent choices are illusory and forced on them?

I wasn't actually referring to your site in that response, Sky, though I cannot help finding it ironic that you thought I was.

I wasn't suggesting that you were referring to my site. In fact, I introduced this new line of reasoning for the very reasons contained in my message. Um ... in fact, my message was exactly about this kind of imprecision.

Who declared them free

I don't believe that being free is a matter of being declared free by somebody.

They are free because ... well, because they are free. It's nothing to do with declaration, nothing to do with any abstract existential state, it's just a statement of fact about these people whom I actually meet.

and who declared them intelligent?

In my opinion and experience they have a normal to above-normal range of intelligence. This is based on things like their problem-solving abilities, their ability to analyse a situation, their accademic achievements, their business accumen, etc. These (and a bunch of other things that I won't bore you with) are how I define a person's intelligence. YMMV.

How do you know? Would they tell you, their paymaster, if they didn't consider themselves to be making a free choice?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I'm their customer. I don't know what this "paymaster" stuff is. Also, regarding the stuff about pointed guns in Bulgaria, I think you have the wrong guy or a strange fantasy about my life and exploits.

Yes, they may THINK they have made a free choice, but in reality they have been constrained by the society in which they live, where their choices ARE limited and they may THINK their choice is intelligent.

As your assertion is a faith-based one rather than an evidence-based one, there's not much I can say in response.

their freedom is illusory,

Getting into the realms of religious faith here.

Not to the same extent as a girl who has been trafficked, of course, but nor is it a completely different sphere.

To suggest that I am in a similar sphere to traffickers is entirely wrong, and I completely reject this. I work entirely legally, and do not breach either any laws or any person's free choice.

I am amazed Sky that you persist in your portrayal that your business is like any other, as though it has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with using female bodies for mostly men to slaver over and that there is no pressure on the women whom you employ.

Of course you are not the same as the violent abusive man in Bulgaria who kidnaps, abuses and effectively holds hostage some poor young girl. But neither are you removed from that spectrum completely.

Rather than delete your message, I have kept it here because it's important that when such allegations are made, they are faced unequivovally. I can say unambiguously that there is no pressure involved in any of my work with the models, nor any ill will, bad practices, illegal or immoral activities, or anything that might knowingly harm people's welfare. Although not everybody likes sexual material, or my version of it, my work doesn't involve any kind of coercion, nor does it recruit people who are vulnerable, gullible, or short on choices.

As anybody would do in response to a challenge to the integrity and credibility of people he works with or values, I defend the integrity and credibility of the models, your inaccurate appraisal of whom does them a most unfair injustice.

Val

Sat, 14 May 05, 10:51 PM

I am getting quite puzzled as to why Ape continues to be here, given his guilty conscience and self-definition of 'slavering' etc. I suppose it shows the difference between the kind of traditional sexual shame implying degredation revived by later feminists and understanding of sexual appreciation between equals as part of the joys to be shared because they are between equals.

Ape

Sun, 15 May 05, 8:24 AM

Guilt is not a concept I am familiar with. I am of the view that I enjoy reading about wetting, enjoy watching it etc. I have said previously that at least I have the honesty to admit that what I am doing is enjoying the exploitation of women, as indeed is Sky. I have no guilt, but I accept the reality of the situation. I am here because I enjoy it, in the same way that I enjoy drinking to excess sometimes, or smoking, or driving too fast on the roads. I just don't claim some kind of righteousness in those activities. But why would I not enjoy them?

I have always spoken for women as equals. That means in some cases equally as vicious as man (though most women I know would say more so) and in some cases men equally as exploited

You keep saying SOME cases, admitting that there is still an imbalance - again, nearly all pimps ARE male, nearly all victims of sex trafficking ARE female, nearly all prostitutes ARE female. Yes, we do all know that, so why does Val insist there is an equality of exploitation - where is the evidence to back that up? Your female friends may tell you women are equally violent and yet we also know that most rape victims are female, most domestic violence victims are female - again, the evidence contradicts your assertions, Val.

It's almost funny how every time I criticise you, Sky, you turn it on the models. It's a clever device, I admit, but as you well know I have never criticised the models for the decisions they make. I just don't think those decisions are made in freedom in the sense that you dream of. You said "They are free because ... well, because they are free" Come on, Sky, you're gonna have to do better than that. I am not talking about some existential state (though you DO sound like you ARE in the realms of religious faith with that statement!). I am talking about a world of power, money, sex. You completely failed to respond to my comments in the previous post about whether people make free choices, and now you just wander off into fairytale land, saying that someone is free because they are... what is that if not faith!?!

By the way, Sky, I think you'll find a court of law would call you their EMPLOYER (aka paymaster) - check with your lawyer, but you ain't their customer... (though, again, nice device!)

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Sun, 15 May 05, 4:44 PM

This isn't a trick question, I'm being totally serious: What is this argument about?

Ape

Sun, 15 May 05, 7:31 PM

Whether sexism still exists, whether women are at all oppressed (and whether they have equal/more power than men) and whether the porn trade has any taint of intimidation of women and their choices. I know it sounds farfetched in the modern era, but some of us just can't ignore the evidence that Utopia hasn't arrived yet.

If you believe in Father Christmas, join Val and Sky's team!

Val

Sun, 15 May 05, 10:56 PM

I have said previously that at least I have the honesty to admit that what I am doing is enjoying the exploitation of women, as indeed is Sky.

What you are doing is dictating to women your convistion that they are incapable of enjoying sexual situations equally as men. Are Kate and Holy exploited? Who are you to decide that even if the models appear and claim not to be be exploited, that only proves silly little girls are too stupid to understand what their male and feminist PC superiors know better than them by the circular logic that if they disagree it shows they are too stupid to understand. This is exactly the sort of patronising desexualisaation that started Women's Liberation in the first placed!

I have always spoken for women as equals. That means in some cases equally as vicious as man (though most women I know would say more so) and in some cases men equally as exploited

You keep saying SOME cases, admitting that there is still an imbalance - again, nearly all pimps ARE male, nearly all victims of sex trafficking ARE female, nearly all prostitutes ARE female. Yes, we do all know that, so why does Val insist there is an equality of exploitation - where is the evidence to back that up? Your female friends may tell you women are equally violent and yet we also know that most rape victims are female, most domestic violence victims are female - again, the evidence contradicts your assertions, Val.

Some women are equally as vicious as some men. Very often women get men to do their dirty business for them. The law treats women differently: they can and do play the 'feeble female' card even in cases where they have taped themselves screaming at men for refusing to torture or rape victims any more. Myra Hindley played the card and lost because Ian Bradley was in fact mentally subnormal and demonstrably under her control, so did Rosemary West.

You jump from one thing to another. The majority of pimps are male because 'pimp' is a masculine word: all 'Madames' are female and there are just as many of them, and many women involved in trafficking and child abduction because a woman looks safe. Many more adult prostitutes are female than male because women will not pay for sex and do not need to, while for men it is the opposite. Probably there are worldwide more boy than girl child prostitutes.

Another reason prostitutes are female is that it is an easy way for a teenage addict to get money. A man will not be able to sell sex and few wish to to men. A woman can make money from sex, so in need, will. A man cannot. You'll find the male equivalent in petty theft and muggings. That is quite apart from high-class specialist professionals by appointment who are probably running their own show: if they were charging #100/hour and upwards in 1980, what do the charge now? Are they 'exploited'. Or are cleaners exploited?

Rape victims are going to be mainly female because women are incapable of raping men. So what? Just before I left home there was a case where two men shoved a broom handle up a woman. The judge told them how lucky they were they could not be charged with rape, so the maximum sentence was two years. Rape never killed anyone: a vagina is intended for a penis, however unpleasant at the time. Impalement does kill but traditional and feminist obsession with sex means all that matters is the impossibility of discovering the woman's state of mind and whether she had sex, and to hell with actual injury done to her.

The majority of domestic violence victims are women? Depends on definitions of violence: in an equal world, the old days of 'A Gentleman never hits a Lady no matter what she does' are out the window: women complain more because more men are hitting back and showing the emotions women claim men do not, just as women have always been encouraged to hit out or throw dangerous objects at men because they could get away without come-back.

And Kate - I don't know either :?

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Mon, 16 May 05, 12:32 AM

Re: What is this argument about?;

Whether sexism still exists, whether women are at all oppressed (and whether they have equal/more power than men) and whether the porn trade has any taint of intimidation of women and their choices. I know it sounds farfetched in the modern era, but some of us just can't ignore the evidence that Utopia hasn't arrived yet.

If you believe in Father Christmas, join Val and Sky's team!

Yes, sexism does and will always exist - the only thing that could end all prejudices/unfair-preferences is giving everyone a lobotomy. People have different opinions, that's what makes the world the (sometimes shitty) place it is.

And, for the record, I think it's insolent of you to say that Sky's opinions are akin to believing in Father Christmas. I rather think that if you made your points in a less aggressive, arrogant way, we'd all be more ready to accept them. For instance, it's true that parallels can be drawn between an illegal sex trade and glamour modelling industry, because both are based on the simple equation female body + male consumer = money, but the way you persist with your attempted dressing-down of this site and others like it simply for the sake of it... I'm sorry, but how else do you expect Sky (or his friends) to react? It's almost like you have a deep-seated, unconscious guilt about your sexual interests and the only outlet that helps you feel better is to attack the people at the supply end.

I was amused to see you put "if you believe [...] join Val and Sky's team", grouping Val and Sky as though they are in cahoots, when in reality the things they've said have hardly shown them to be of similar minds. You grouped them merely because they've both, in their own ways, disagreed with you. In your head it really is you against the world, isn't it?

DavidEngland99

Mon, 16 May 05, 12:56 AM

If only I had a way to convert words into pee.... :P

David

skymouse

Mon, 16 May 05, 2:19 AM

It's almost funny how every time I criticise you, Sky, you turn it on the models. It's a clever device, I admit, but as you well know I have never criticised the models for the decisions they make. I just don't think those decisions are made in freedom in the sense that you dream of.

But by dismissing their freedom as illusory, you are paying the models an enourmous disservice. This element in your message may not have been important to you, but - because the models for me are real people whom I spend time with, work with, and relate to as humans - it is important to me. One thing about me is that when I see somebody I care about being misrepresented, I will put the contrary case forward.

By the way, Sky, I think you'll find a court of law would call you their EMPLOYER

Absolutely not. These terms not only have different meanings and are used in different contexts to eachother, but (at least in my country) there are different laws, tax arrangements, rights, benefits, etc, for each.

Most of the models are self-employed. A smaller number have been employees of companies (in which they may or may not have owned a beneficiary share) that carry out modelling services.

check with your lawyer

I always make sure my business relationships are correctly conducted AND correctly understood (by myself and others). This is an important responsibility of a company director. I obviously get legal and other professional help in this, as appropriate.

but you ain't their customer

I sure am their customer, in both a legal sense and any informal sense. The model (or her company) is an independent contractor. By supplying a service, she (or her company) becomes my supplier and I become the customer.

Ape

Mon, 16 May 05, 9:07 AM

It's almost like you have a deep-seated, unconscious guilt about your sexual interests and the only outlet that helps you feel better is to attack the people at the supply end.

Not at all, I just say, as you do, that "parallels can be drawn between an illegal sex trade and glamour modelling industry, because both are based on the simple equation female body + male consumer = money" Maybe the insolent way I present it means that Sky and co. cannot accept it, but I suspect even if it was put pleasantly, they still wouldn't. Let's ask:

Readers, Kate has pleasantly argued that there is a parallel between your site and the women on it and the illegal sex trade. Do you agree?

As for my attempted dressing-down of this site? I think you just did it too, Kate.

Oh and Val, you keep talking about Kate and Holly and whether they are exploited. You're obviously not paying attention, because as my argument has made clear time and again, they are doing this OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. The proof is they get no money, they have chosen to be here. Sky's models are PAID, and more importantly, if they weren't, THEY WOULDN'T CHOOSE TO BE HERE. It's like the bullshit the models come out with about enjoying pissing themselves that the naive Grant thinks is a true statement - yet how many of them return, how many of them would be here for free? They do it because they are paid to do it. How clear do you need it to be?

Ape

Mon, 16 May 05, 9:11 AM

But by dismissing their freedom as illusory, you are paying the models an enourmous disservice. This element in your message may not have been important to you, but - because the models for me are real people

And so are all the British soldiers who joined up and went to Iraq, but they were not free either. Their choices were limited, their options restricted, the power over their lives not completely their own. It is no disservice to place someone's life choices IN CONTEXT, to consider all the pressures that lead them to making a decision. It is a disservice to pretend that all is wonderful and that we live in land of milk and honey when we do not.

DavidEngland99

Mon, 16 May 05, 11:06 AM

Ape,

You are becoming so opinionated I don't know if there is any point in even trying to put another point of view.

The idea that someone is only free from exploitation if they do something they enjoy and get no money in return is just daft. I like programming, but I also like being paid to do it!

Good looking young women get a whole variety of job opportunities that other people don't. If you make out that they are all being 'exploited' for their bodies - regardless of how much they are paid - I think you are just debasing the meaning of that word.

Sky: I wish more of your models would post here and discuss honestly how it felt for them. The whole experience of wetting in frront of a camera must be a very powerful emotional experience - particularly the first time!

David

Ape

Mon, 16 May 05, 8:46 PM

Ape,

You are becoming so opinionated I don't know if there is any point in even trying to put another point of view.

What, just because I disagree with Sky that his models are not free to choose as they please and just because I think Val lives in some parallel universe where sexism does not exist and rape is just a slightly inappropriate use of the cock!?!? Thanks, I think I'm happy to be opinionated in that instance.

The idea that someone is only free from exploitation if they do something they enjoy and get no money in return is just daft. I like programming, but I also like being paid to do it!

But that's the whole point, David. If you were doing a different job, you would still like programming. I bet you hardly any of the models on this site would still like wetting and posing if they were doing something different and equally well paid. Look, this answers Val's earlier point as well. The reason Holly and Kate are not exploited is twofold:

1. They do not get any money for doing what they like.
2. They have chosen to do something else to earn money instead.

The models on this site are getting money to do something that they DON'T like (for the most part, I bet) and that, in itself, is proof that their choice was limited. As I said in an earlier post, find me one model who has left Sky's site to seek employment elsewhere and yet continued to return to enjoy the wetting community. Sure, maybe one or two of his frequent girls do enjoy wetting (and choose not to frequent this place for fear of the celebrity stalkers they would have to endure), but the vast majority DO NOT. THAT is why they are exploited, they are being paid to do something that they would not do otherwise.

Good looking young women get a whole variety of job opportunities that other people don't. If you make out that they are all being 'exploited' for their bodies - regardless of how much they are paid - I think you are just debasing the meaning of that word.

They are objectified, turned into objects for other people to wank over. (and, please, let's not start claiming that there are expressions of great depth and personality in the wetting videos!)Are you saying that paying for sex is non-exploitative once you hit a certain threshold of payment? Does that amount differ according to the body? Are you saying that as long as the price is right, nothing is exploitative? I'd say you don't KNOW the meaning of that word!

Sky: I wish more of your models would post here and discuss honestly how it felt for them. The whole experience of wetting in frront of a camera must be a very powerful emotional experience - particularly the first time!

Hmmm, or maybe the reason they don't is they are not that keen on their bodies being used as objects. Has it not occurred to anyone WHY they don't post here? Ok, I know, secretly they are all wetting themselves like mad, and enjoying it no end, but steer clear of this place because of the natives.

DavidEngland99

Mon, 16 May 05, 10:38 PM

Ape,

I guess Sky knows a lot more about his models than either of us! He does not claim that they all like wetting, but he does report that some of them are interested in it. If you remember, Anna actually came over from Germany specially to wet because she liked it.

Obviously the women who work for Sky are not typical - they are obviously fairly exhibishionist, and presumably not weighed down by strong religious taboos. My guess is that a lot of people are into wet fun in private, so I think it is quite reasonable that several of his girls get a kick out of it.

Not everyone does enjoy their job. People pack boxes on conveyer belts, clean offices, work at call centres. Maybe these jobs are a bit exploitative, but nobody bangs on about it in the same way as they do regarding sex-related activities.

I really can't understand why you even come to this site if you feel the way you do - are you an actual paying member? I would certainly not wish to frequent a site that I felt really exploited women.

Has it ever occured to you that some of Sky's women may go home and say "I can earn good money just for peeing my clothes - that beats most jobs hands down!"

David

Val

Mon, 16 May 05, 11:19 PM

Ape,

Not everyone does enjoy their job. People pack boxes on conveyer belts, clean offices, work at call centres. Maybe these jobs are a bit exploitative, but nobody bangs on about it in the same way as they do regarding sex-related activities.

David

This is the point I keep trying to get through. All Ape's views have a certain degree of truth in them, but no more than in any other field. Treat other areas the way sexual thrills are treated by reactionaries and feminists, and you are classed as an extreme 'Socialist oppressor of freedom'. Taking the end result is working backwards, excusing one's own contempt, sexism, for the people concerned by throwing it onto what they do and pretending they can't possibly want to do it or that really would mean having to face up to their choice to be so 'disgusting'.

Women do it as well because if 'liberation' means women asserting sex as freely as they imagine men can, (in fact traditional and femniist pretence of women's sexual inferiority means men have to be wary of treating women straight out sexually in case the poor little things shrivel up and die), it can't be sold as special favours the woman would never enjoy in her own right, so deserves compensation for.

If we start by assuming both sexes equal, then the obvious reason there are far more men looking for and at women than the other way round is that there have always been so, so there is no need for the women to go chasing the men. They are in the superior position of men having to offer for their acceptance or rejection. One way to keep that superiority against claims for equality is to present it as actually a subordinate position forced on women that they are too feeble to avoid.

You can see a development that goes perfectly with wider contempt for women's activities, so by implication the women and even more so men, who choose them over traditional men's commercial involvement. Women's 'liberation' while women expect to trade unpaid domestic management equally against men doing hard dirty work to provide the money means freedom to act as sexually as men. When those unskilled man's jobs were lost and women expected to compete with men fending for themselves commercially so their domestic work was downgraded because it is unpaid (and to force them into work), 'liberation' came to mean freedom from being expected to be as sexually active as men and the image returns again of sex as mainly something shameful that men expect of women.

Even women prepared to demand their own freedom of active sexual assertion are simultaneously indoctrinated to require men to treat them as sexless inferiors needing protection from the 'sexual harrassment' of treatment as equally sexual human beings.

If you start from assuming both sexes by nature equal, that does not change because of what individuals choose to do. If you start with sexist assumptions about some activities shameful, or shameful for women, you necessarily value those women who do them as inferiors either forced into it and if they will not confess to being forced, then too inferior to even realise what they are doing.

Personally I envy women's greater sexual freedom and ability. If some men despise sexual women or see sex as rape, that is their problem. Others as equally enjoy and envy another's excitement, and show of sexual capacity such as Insex that no man could ever match and wish women got as much sexual excitement from teasing men.

~*~ k a t e ~*~

Mon, 16 May 05, 11:50 PM

Sure, maybe one or two of his frequent girls do enjoy wetting (and choose not to frequent this place for fear of the celebrity stalkers they would have to endure), but the vast majority DO NOT. THAT is why they are exploited, they are being paid to do something that they would not do otherwise.

Why is that exploitation? I'm paid to sell printers and ink-cartridges to people, and would not do it otherwise, but I am not exploited because I'm happy to do that job and I accept the terms of my contract of employment.

I agree with you when you raise the point that many of Sky's models will probably not be interested in wetting other than in the context of a modelling contract, but when you say that, due to that reality, they are being stripped of their free-will and becoming helpless objects of exploit, I think you're going a bit too far. On top of that, you're trying to justify your extreme view by implying that anyone who disagrees is somehow naive and living in a dreamland. There is such a thing as being too cynical, you know ;)

All your "stone-cold realism" etc etc is fine and good, but what are you trying to prove by preaching it to us over and over and over? Most of us would agree with the facts you're basing your arguments on, but it's the way you're expressing yourself that's provoking the ranting and disagreeing. When someone comes across as angry and self-righteous, it goes a long way to dilute whatever underlying point they're trying to make...