- Thread starter JustRiley
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
Ian Wou, Toronto - didn't you read this part
Was being sarcastic, sorry dry humor as I doubt that is his real name.
Goggled his name and most are professional men and why would you risk being outed.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ian wu toronto
Buying sex, fine. Buying this bill, NO, June 16
Justice Minister Peter MacKay thinks I am a pervert. A Star columnist called me pathetic. And if the prostitution laws in Bill C-36 pass, I will also be a criminal.
Most of the criticism of Bill C-36 rightly points out that the bill endangers precisely those whom it purports to protect. Moreover, it flies in the face of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Bedford decision. However, I would like to address the issue from the rarely expressed point of view of the customer.
I am a “john.” I am a client of prostitutes. The women I meet for sex are intelligent, independent women who voluntarily choose to have sex for money. They are not coerced into prostitution, they are not drug addicted and they are not pimped. Of course, this is not true for all prostitutes, but there are already laws protecting those that are coerced or abused, and such laws should be more vigorously enforced. However, many, including those I meet, freely choose to engage in prostitution.
An acquaintance with oodles of charm and Brad Pitt looks, considers seducing women a sport. He lies without compunction and frequently succeeds in his quest — usually with insecure women — without feeling any pangs of guilt.
A colleague repeatedly violates his marriage vows and the trust of his wife by engaging in a string of workplace affairs. A young woman I know openly admits that she married her older husband only because of his wealth.
I do not have the good looks or charm that these acquaintances do. I have not had the luck or self-confidence to find a conventional partner. Nor do I have the ability to act with a disregard for others in order to fulfil my needs. Instead, I have honest and forthright agreements in which I exchange money for sex with women who willingly participate.
But Mr. MacKay thinks I am the pervert.
Ian Wou, Toronto
S
Sophia Sinclair
Guest
He's from the red board and goes by the handle iwrutmb (7 posts) and yes the name Ian Wou is an alias, as discussed there.
Doesn't the star have to verify it's a legit name?.
Otherwise all Johns and Petes can just write whatever they want.
At least he has the intestinal fortitude to put himself out there for a cause he believes in. If more people would do the same perhaps your favorite past time might have a chance but the silence from all involved i.e. the big media outlets on the advertisement issue, you the johns, pay for play ladies and the outlets that represent them seem to be folding up their tent and handing a resounding victory to the government and it's allies. I did find this forum and hobby disgusting at the start but I've grown quite fond of many of you as I started to peel back the layers of information and do feel bad for some who will undoubtedly fall within the criminal system in the near future.
lovelatinas
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,702
He should of used Peter Mackay. LOL!!!
G
Guido
Guest
I can't look at Peter Mackay without throwing a slice of pizza at the tv screen.
Never ever will I vote for a conservative party member again!
Never ever will I vote for a conservative party member again!
Anonymous69
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,211
Anonymous
The government of Canada says I’m a bad person. In fact, they say I am a pervert and a predator for using the services of prostitutes. They’re wrong.
I have used the services of female prostitutes on a number of occasions, while I was still married to my wife of many years. While I loved my partner and we were a happy family with one child, it was a sexless marriage. My spouse had no interest in me sexually and we had separate bedrooms for more than a decade of our union.
What was I supposed to do? I was a healthy young man with normal sexual desires. I did not want to break up our family and I did not want to have an affair. The simplest solution was to pay the sex worker, from time to time, to meet my needs.
I meant no disrespect to my wife and, likewise, I treat all women with the respect they deserve. That includes the women I paid to have sex with me. These encounters were mutually consensual business transactions that harmed no one.
That is the first place I take issue with Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s characterization of prostitution. He says it is demeaning to women to treat sex as a commodity. I say that is exactly what it is, a commodity. Just like the woman who works at a lousy minimum wage job sells her labour, the prostitute is offering a service for a fee. The two should be viewed and treated exactly the same, because at the end of the day, all services are indeed a commodity.
No one, including Mr. MacKay, has the right to tell a woman or anyone else what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. The women I had sex with made the choice to engage with me of their own free will. No one put a gun to their head and no one did anything they did not want to do.
Of course, choice is central to my whole argument. Anyone forced or coerced to do anything against their will is being victimized. But that is not the case with the women I met. They set the terms, we negotiated a price, the deed was done and no one was hurt.
I find it very ironic that many of the arguments used to suggest that it is morally offensive for men to buy sex from women are adopted from extreme feminist views. Many of these same feminists are pro-choice, rightly declaring that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, even if it means terminating a life. Yet when it comes to sex, these very same people are now here to say that a woman does not have the right to choose. Her body is her own so long as she does nothing with it that these moral guardians find objectionable.
Yes, there are men who are abusive. There is no denying that. But that is not the vast majority of johns, and that was not me. Men want sex. It’s that simple. They do not wish to harm anyone in the process, but it does require a little assistance. If a woman, for whatever reason, decides she is willing to provide that service, who is Mr. MacKay to stop her?
These proposed new laws do not empower women, they infantilize them. They take away a woman’s right to exercise her own judgement and strip her of her right to do so safely. As some former sex workers have pointed out, a ban on the advertising of sexual services puts women in a very vulnerable place. They will not be able to attract customers to the safety of their own homes or brothels and will be left with only one place to go — the streets.
Does the government of Canada really think they are enhancing the dignity of women by putting them out to the curb in the least safe, lowest paid position they can be? They are not preventing the exploitation of women with this move; they are setting up the very conditions which guarantee it.
I believe I am an ethical man. I do not wish to exploit anyone, and I don’t think I have. But by taking away the sex workers’ ability to operate under the terms of her choosing, they are forcing us all into the humiliating position of meeting in the back seats of cars in dark alleys. Forcing us all into the situation of sneaking around in the least safe, least dignified manner possible is the true crime against women.
If you really want to empower women, respect their choices. Don’t make the decisions for them.
National Post
The author of this column is a client of sex workers. He lives in a major Ontario city. The National Post agreed to his request for anonymity.
The government of Canada says I’m a bad person. In fact, they say I am a pervert and a predator for using the services of prostitutes. They’re wrong.
I have used the services of female prostitutes on a number of occasions, while I was still married to my wife of many years. While I loved my partner and we were a happy family with one child, it was a sexless marriage. My spouse had no interest in me sexually and we had separate bedrooms for more than a decade of our union.
What was I supposed to do? I was a healthy young man with normal sexual desires. I did not want to break up our family and I did not want to have an affair. The simplest solution was to pay the sex worker, from time to time, to meet my needs.
I meant no disrespect to my wife and, likewise, I treat all women with the respect they deserve. That includes the women I paid to have sex with me. These encounters were mutually consensual business transactions that harmed no one.
That is the first place I take issue with Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s characterization of prostitution. He says it is demeaning to women to treat sex as a commodity. I say that is exactly what it is, a commodity. Just like the woman who works at a lousy minimum wage job sells her labour, the prostitute is offering a service for a fee. The two should be viewed and treated exactly the same, because at the end of the day, all services are indeed a commodity.
No one, including Mr. MacKay, has the right to tell a woman or anyone else what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. The women I had sex with made the choice to engage with me of their own free will. No one put a gun to their head and no one did anything they did not want to do.
Of course, choice is central to my whole argument. Anyone forced or coerced to do anything against their will is being victimized. But that is not the case with the women I met. They set the terms, we negotiated a price, the deed was done and no one was hurt.
I find it very ironic that many of the arguments used to suggest that it is morally offensive for men to buy sex from women are adopted from extreme feminist views. Many of these same feminists are pro-choice, rightly declaring that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, even if it means terminating a life. Yet when it comes to sex, these very same people are now here to say that a woman does not have the right to choose. Her body is her own so long as she does nothing with it that these moral guardians find objectionable.
Yes, there are men who are abusive. There is no denying that. But that is not the vast majority of johns, and that was not me. Men want sex. It’s that simple. They do not wish to harm anyone in the process, but it does require a little assistance. If a woman, for whatever reason, decides she is willing to provide that service, who is Mr. MacKay to stop her?
These proposed new laws do not empower women, they infantilize them. They take away a woman’s right to exercise her own judgement and strip her of her right to do so safely. As some former sex workers have pointed out, a ban on the advertising of sexual services puts women in a very vulnerable place. They will not be able to attract customers to the safety of their own homes or brothels and will be left with only one place to go — the streets.
Does the government of Canada really think they are enhancing the dignity of women by putting them out to the curb in the least safe, lowest paid position they can be? They are not preventing the exploitation of women with this move; they are setting up the very conditions which guarantee it.
I believe I am an ethical man. I do not wish to exploit anyone, and I don’t think I have. But by taking away the sex workers’ ability to operate under the terms of her choosing, they are forcing us all into the humiliating position of meeting in the back seats of cars in dark alleys. Forcing us all into the situation of sneaking around in the least safe, least dignified manner possible is the true crime against women.
If you really want to empower women, respect their choices. Don’t make the decisions for them.
National Post
The author of this column is a client of sex workers. He lives in a major Ontario city. The National Post agreed to his request for anonymity.
Canada's crime rate is going down, so the Harper government needs to create new classes of criminals in order to validate their 'tough on crime' rhetoric. Prostitution, cannabis, and next will be internet-related, they can really round up a lot of new criminals with the right legislation. To protect copyright holders. And of course, to protect the children.
Another letter writer: Terri Jean Bedford, to Kathleen Wynn:
Similar threads
