Monday, October 11, 2010

Fletch Pimp Pam Corkery [update - video link]

[Update] you can watch the video yourself now HERE

I have just seen Pam Corkery interviewed on Good Morning talking about her new brothel business; it's a service consisting of male hookers especially for women clients. I watched the whole interview pretty much shaking my head at what this distasteful woman was saying. As the video of her appearance is not up online yet, I will try to summarise in my own words until I can update.

The interviewer Hadyn asked her how she had come up with the idea. Pam said that she had just gotten over her alcoholism and was driving around one day and feeling like she'd "like some" (sex), but that she just wanted the sex and then to be able to pay the man to go away after because she'd been married three times already and wasn't after anything more meaningful. By chance her friend had also just broken up and she also was feeling needy and so they decided to go into business together and start up a brothel especially for women to go to.

One of the reasons for this, Pam says, is that women can go to a club, spend $300 on a night out, and end up with some loser guy who doesn't actually give the woman the satisfaction she craves; so why not, says Pammy, spend $240 with my brothel instead and get a man who has been trained up especially in how to please a woman.

She says she sees a lot of women on Facebook who have broken up with a guy, and they end up going straight into another relationship when all they're really wanting is sex and a cuddle. After all, NZ women are the third promiscuous in the world, says Pam.

Because of this, she says she is doing "God's work". Yes, "God's work". Hadyn says he doesn't quite know if God would see it like that, to which Pam replies, it depends on the god - at least the "god of my understanding", she says. She says most guys don't know what they are doing, but you can't exactly take a guy back to the store like a toaster when it doesn't work, and that many kiwi women feel they "have not been browned properly".

Pam claims that this brothel is not only the first in NZ, but it's world first - New Zealand was the first to bring in the vote for women, and now we have this first as well (some distinction ey?)

That's the problem with society today. Sex has been reduced to the equivalent of the pleasure of having a glass of wine - something to do on a Saturday night out that doesn't involve any of those nasty things like commitment or responsibility, and certainly nothing to do with love - ewwww. Sex is referred to as "making love" - or used to be - for a reason. It's supposed to be the most intimate expression of caring and, well - love - that there is for the other person. Pam, and people like her, think of sex as something as throw-away as a used condom. According to her "focus groups", Pam says a good brothel in Auckland can process 500 "tricks" a day - wow, think of all that money. She compares her idea to the idea of the post-it note - something no one has ever thought of before and an inspiration.

This repellent woman has no morals or values whatsoever and her brothel will not make NZ a better place; in fact, it brings down the entire tone of the country. She really should be ashamed, but I do not think that shame is an emotion she feels anymore.

7 comment(s):

KG said...

How bloody depressing!

leftrightout said...

Yes, KG it is bloody depressing that know nothings waht to tell everyone else of they can/should/must live without any grounding for their diktats.

Sex has been reduced to the equivalent of the pleasure of having a glass of wine ...

Sex is pleasurable, so why not enjoy the pleasures that life offers? Why does sex and love have to be a package. You do know that there are people deeply in love, yet for all sorts of reasons (none of which are our business) they do not have sex. Just as there are a good many people who have sex for pleasure, divorcing it from love.

I am capable of love.

I am capable of sex.

I am able to combine the two, or enjoy each separatly. Why aren't you?

I often hear xians preach that homosexuality is unnatural,that it is against nature. Well,so is sex being totally bound up with love.

If Corkery has found a market, good on her. If there is no demand, then her venture will fail. Its a straight out business, not a moral issue at all.

This repellent woman has no morals or values whatsoever ...

And you know this how? Or is it just that she doesn't share your peculiar morals?

muerk said...

I don't think it' fair to call Pam Corkery repellent or without morals or values. I do think it's fair to say she is totally wrong about sex.

Just because we can physically enjoy sex without love, it doesn't mean we should. Lots of pleasurable things aren't the best for us. Lots of things occur in nature that aren't best for us. Arsenic is cmpletely natural and it will kill you if you are exposed enough to it. No one would suggest eating death cap mushrooms for breakfast, but they are natural too.

All our actions have moral consequences, we can't just shrug our shoulders and claim 'business' as if that makes something acceptable. Commercial whaling is business, it doesn't make it good. Child labour is business, doesn't make it moral.

Our sexuality is an intimate sharing of our body and our self. Because it's so intimate it's best to share with someone who is fully reciprocating, who is also fully giving of themslves during the sexual act. Part of giving yourself to another person completely is making a commitment to them, the most complete commitment is marriage. Commercial sex removes part of what the sexual act can be. There is no complete sharing of the self, there is no emotional commitment. It makes reduces what sex can be.

I think it's sad that people are prepared to buy and sell sex. It a bit like buying and selling friendship. Would we pay $50 to have someone take us to lunch and chat with us about our week? Probably not, we would know that the friendship wasn't real, that once the 'friend' had finished nodding and caring for the paid hour they would walk off and just be a stranger again.

If it seems weird to buy the act of friendship, why isn't it weird to buy the act of love and commitment?

KG said...

For starters, you know damn-all about me LRO and much as you disgust me I'll deal with one thing you said:

"I am able to combine the two, or enjoy each separatly. Why aren't you?"

Why? Why do you assume I cannot?
However, since I grew up and put adolescent gonad-driven behaviour behind me I recognized that sex without love is no better or more meaningful than masturbation.
And I also know that sex without love is no better or more satisfying and meaningful that what the animals in the paddocks outside my window do. Humans are capable of much more than that.
Some humans, that is....

You go ahead, in your slimy little leftard utopia and enjoy sex as a trivial diversion or as a mere commodity. We

I.M Fletcher said...

Well said muerk. I do not think LRO understands at all. What he is talking about comes down to basic selfishness. 'It feels good, so I want to do it'.

The action of eating food is also pleasurable; food tastes good and we enjoy eating, but the enjoyment of eating is not the reason we eat; the main reason is that is gives our bodies sustenance. Sometimes at Christmas or other occasions we can enjoy it a little too much and make ourselves feel sick. The Romans would have vomitoriums at their parties so that they could throw up when they were full and continue on eating.

So yes, sex is good, but the good feeling we have in doing it is not the reason for sex, just as the reason for eating is not the enjoyment we get from tasting food.
Sex has purposes - namely the procreation of offspring, and the drawing closer together of the two performing it; each time you perform it, you give a little of yourself away. Perhaps LRO does not understand that, but the two are as entwined as eating and nutrition.

To separate the two into a purely physical act is selfish to both partners. "Sex being bound up with love" *is* natural - that's why they call it the act of "making love".

I.M Fletcher said...

Well said KG as well. You must have posted while I was writing.

leftrightout said...

"To separate the two into a purely physical act is selfish to both partners."

Just what is wrong with selfishness occasionally? Must everything be about self sacrifice?

"Sex being bound up with love" *is* natural - that's why they call it the act of "making love".

And sex without love is ALSO natural.That's why they call it fucking, screwing, rooting, shagging, and all those other words we have for it.

Sometimes I want to make love, sometimes I just want to fuck. What's wrong with that?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.