You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 8135539 (Thread)

she emphatically denies ever being ‘the common tart’ she was painted as.
She was not, she insists, a prostitute ‘in the sense that most people understand the word’.
The sense in which I understand the word is that it describes a person who offers sex in return for money or the equivalent in goods.
‘It’s true that I have had sex for money but only out of desperation,’ Keeler elaborates, distinguishing herself from those who do it because it’s such a laugh.

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 8:56, archived)
The timeless "I was young and I needed the money" excuse.
Also, it's a well-known fact that most modern prostitutes are in the business for a laugh.
(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 8:57, archived)
I know I am

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:20, archived)
I can see the distinction
she was just the precursor of all the modern millennial girls who sex as their only legitimate career path because they're too thick or lazy to get a competitive job, and education is too hard and/or expensive.

If you've got nice tits and you swallow, then servicing a politician is better than a dead end cashier's job at lidl.
(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 8:59, archived)
Well, it worked for Belle de Jour.

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:04, archived)
do you think she made more money as a writer than she did selling her orifices?

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:05, archived)
Good question.
She was on the classier end of the spectrum by all accounts so she must have been pulling down several grand a week. She's probably made more money from the books and TV right overall, but that's over a longer timespan.
(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:10, archived)
oh yer, that film deal was probably a decent chunk

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:13, archived)
at least mandy rice-davies admitted she was a slag

(, Wed 6 Dec 2017, 9:00, archived)