Would you see an SP if you knew she had been lured/tricked into working?

[Questor]

Good thread, Fuji. Glad to see the poll results saying no. But how about complicating it a bit. Who has or would hobby in South East Asia, where it's well known SP's are basically indentured slaves? I would answer no to each, for just that reason.

I have been with SPs in developing countries. I don't believe they have been tricked into doing it. But I think they lack viable options. Most have children to support. I've been with some who were working in a sweatshop for next to nothing (before sex work). They get laid off and turn to sex work. So if you are worried about basically indentured slaves and would not be with a sex worker because of that, you better not buy any sneakers or tshirts or any onther clothing made in Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Honduras, Dominican Republic, and a long list of other countries. Because the workers, mostly young women with no other options in life, are basically indentured slaves. Sex work is no different except that it offers them better pay.

I would not go with an SP if I thought she was coerced by a gang or a husband or a boyfriend or a pimp. That is different than what I am talking about above.

 

[nolabel]

I see your point, Questor. Factory workers in developing countries are not exactly getting a good deal, and the consumer practices of developing countries fuel that bad deal. But I am not convinced it is accurate to say that sex work is no different. Indeed, part of the reason I would say that is because I have read SP's on the board here articulating the personal and intimate aspects of sex work. But also, who hasn't read about the violence and outright levels of exploitation of sex workers in South East Asia? Still, I take your point. The line is a blurry one, and I certainly would not pretend I have an unambiguous way of making the distinction. But I can still make my choice, and I would go with lower levels of coercion.

 

[rosemount36]

Would I see anyone who didnt keep 100% of the money I paid her for herself - NO, Not knowingly, NEVER !!!!

What that person decides to spend it on without coercion, marketing, drivers, security etc.. thats her business... as long as its not coerced in any manner or form.

A bit of a rant but I think I speak for amlost 99.99999 % of guys here on Terb.

So to be clear....does this mean you only see Independent SP's? If an SP worked for an agency, does this mean that you would not see them?

 

[fuji]

I wanted to see the result, I figured it would be overwhelmingly "no".

I suspect what is going on is that the question in the article was "lured, tricked or trafficked" and I suspect that the definition of "trafficked" is the source of the problem. My guess is that "trafficked" includes any woman who was transported across a border for the purpose of prostitution by a "snake head" or anyone else who collects a fee--even if said woman is a fully willing participant in the transaction. For example, I believe that many of the asian/EE SP's that we have in Toronto who would be counted as "trafficked" by this definition were in fact already working as prostitutes in their home country and simply moved here to earn the higher wage, willingly, knowing full well that they would be prostitutes before they left home. Such women are neither "tricked" nor "lured" but are technically "trafficked".

That to me is quite different than the case of a woman who is told the job involves no sex and then on arrival, after spending much of her own money to get here, is pressured into working as a prostitute despite having originally not wanted to do that. In cases like that it's my opinion the police should crack down hard and put everyone associated with the transaction in jail, except obviously for the woman, who should be compensated for her loss or offered citizenship in exchange for her testimony (i.e., giving every such woman every reason to turn against the bad guys.)

The 8% of you who, so far, have voted for one of the yes options are reprehensible subhumans who should immediately seek treatment for your dangerous mental disorders.

 

[K Douglas]

I purposely only see women who are (or at least appear to be) comfortable in the sex trade. I'm very selective on who I see and I do my research so I know I'd never get myself into a situation like this.

 

[Questor]

I see your point, Questor. Factory workers in developing countries are not exactly getting a good deal, and the consumer practices of developing countries fuel that bad deal. But I am not convinced it is accurate to say that sex work is no different. Indeed, part of the reason I would say that is because I have read SP's on the board here articulating the personal and intimate aspects of sex work. But also, who hasn't read about the violence and outright levels of exploitation of sex workers in South East Asia? Still, I take your point. The line is a blurry one, and I certainly would not pretend I have an unambiguous way of making the distinction. But I can still make my choice, and I would go with lower levels of coercion.

I haven't read about violence and outright exploitation of sex workers in SE Asia but I wouldnt deny that it exists. I agree with you that the line is a blurry one. But I can't say I feel any guilt that a sex worker I may visit in the developing world has been coerced by economic conditions to do the work she does. I do treat her respectfully as I do sex workers here in Toronto. I am sorry for her circumstances. And I have done considerable in terms of helping women in developing countries so that they aren't coerced into sex work. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, but if it does, so be it.

Oh, and about sex work being different, well it is on some levels, obviously. But I don't think it is worse than a sweatshop for many women.

I appreciate your concern for the ladies nolabel, and the way you have articulated it. I have spent a lot of time in the developing world and my attitudes have been shaped by those experiences. Perhaps if you have not spent as much time there and your attitudes on the subject have been shaped by reading about violence and exploitation in the sex industry, it would not be surprising that our thoughts differ on the matter.

 

[krnguy]

I think an interesting side question is:

How far do you go to determine if a SP is in the trade completely by choice?

To be clear, this question isn't about judging the escort industry. But it's very much a blurred line, as others have mentioned before. To give an analogy, many people say they will not KNOWINGLY purchase clothing made in sweatshops. However, many of those same people never do research into where stores get their clothing manufactured, and end up buying sweatshop clothing anyway.

 

[fuji]

I'm disturbed that there are 6 people here who answered yes, I'll say that.

 

[nolabel]

I appreciate your concern for the ladies nolabel, and the way you have articulated it. I have spent a lot of time in the developing world and my attitudes have been shaped by those experiences. Perhaps if you have not spent as much time there and your attitudes on the subject have been shaped by reading about violence and exploitation in the sex industry, it would not be surprising that our thoughts differ on the matter.

I have travelled throughout SE Asia and China a number of times, but would hesitate to call the sum of all that "alot of time" or enough to draw an unambiguous line between sweat shop work and sex work in the developing world. So it's more than reading but less than direct experience, shall we say. Myself and others would be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think the boundary between the two aint that much of a boundary, if experiences via considerable time in the areas informs your view. A relevant consideration in thinking about the distinction will always be, not the degree of choices available, but the relative freedom to make choices per se.

 

[nolabel]

The 8% of you who, so far, have voted for one of the yes options are reprehensible subhumans who should immediately seek treatment for your dangerous mental disorders.

You're a bit of a complicated case, aren't you Fuji? You told us all that you would gladly exploit a friendship, if it suited you, but here you admirably take a stand against the exploitation of women. I guess we'll take the good with the bad, just like everyone.

 

[The Oracle]

I'm not interested in contributing to the demise of an other individual just for the sake of having sex.

 

[Possum Trot]

Not much point to a poll when one knows what the response will be beforehand. Not sure "tricked" actually conveys the question as well as " coerced" or "forced". To me "tricked" implies the sp is a bit of a dull knife and someone told her that for every john she sees a tree will be planted in the rain forest.
What kind of scumbucket would admit to seeing a sexslave who was working against their will.

 

[fuji]

You're a bit of a complicated case, aren't you Fuji? You told us all that you would gladly exploit a friendship, if it suited you, but here you admirably take a stand against the exploitation of women. I guess we'll take the good with the bad, just like everyone.

I don't commit rape. The behavior indicated by a "yes" vote may not always legally be rape, but in many respects it is rape. You are having sex with a woman you know hasn't truly consented to having sex for money. How far off rape is that?

PT: A classic example of being tricked into working as a prostitute would be to tell a woman in a poor country that there was a job for her in Canada, no sex involved, but she has to pay a large sum of money to get it. On arrival she's told there is no such job, in fact she isn't even legal to work, and that to pay her debt off she'll have to work as a prostitute.

 

[jeckyl]

A bit off topic but answering the question. (many Terb threads meander a little off the point).

So to be clear....does this mean you only see Independent SP's? If an SP worked for an agency, does this mean that you would not see them?

I have seen SP's that work for an agency - I will continue to do so. A reptutable Agency and an SP is a partnership. One provides marketing, drivers, and some semblance of security * (see footnote).

The other provides the actual service (the SP). As long as there is no coercian (Sp** help me) involved its not problem.



* A footnote on security of an agency.

A long standing complaint I have read in the press ( albeit: the one sided press) has been that agencies leave the girls in a hotel room where they are than completely unsecure at the mercy of the john who is in there. I think this is true.

** A point of interest. I have seen Terb moderators scold the hobbying populace for working outside of the agency. Of course its in Terb's managements best interest that they promote agencies or the business people in the trade as that is where Terb earns its revenues... a plain point of fact.

** Agencies are a sad fact of life because of several reasons,
- girls do feel somewhat more secure working for them
- some girls have no means themselves of getting to and from clients
- some girls prefer it because they dont have to shell out for a second cell phone, a computer, an internet connection - in other words lack the resouces, where with all and guts to work as an independent

I am a safe and respectful client and can work with anyone and anyone's restrictions as long as they bring something to the table that can turn me on.

I have several times and will continue to do so .. WORK around the Agency whenever and wherever I can. Working around the agency is a win for me because it costs me less. Its a win for the girl because she gets MORE money. After all she is the one taking all the risks and doing the lion's share of the work. That being said there is still a place in the industry for good agencies that work in partnership with girls as long as they only ask and recieve without coercian a reasonable and small commission for their hmmmmmmm - service. An upside is that if you work with an agency and you truly get way below average service there can be recourse at times - ie: a discount on the next session.


Jeckyl

 

[IAmNotSoVanilla]

Some escorts are economic slaves to the industry, it's the only way for them to pay the bills while they're raising a kid after the father took off.
Sure it's their own "choice", but it isn't one they would make if they had other skills.

Would I see them? Sure, no problem.

I was thinking much the same thing that at a base level it is economic motivation and survival for some. I struggle to make all my financial obligations despite having "a good job". I leave the patronage of these arts up to you fellas though.

I am bright, educated, articulate and working in the mainstream at a pink collar job and I would argue that the quality of life that some of these women have who have gone into the trade either willingly or because they feel compelled to do so for economic reasons exceeds my own in terms of utility, free time, etc. There is the downside which would have someone like me choose not to enter the business but where have my skills gotten me? I mean perhaps I have skills that would make me suited to a good number of things which could be more lucrative but I stick with that which is safest for me and mine.

As for the ladies who do enter it to make money, of their own accord, I understand from what I've read that to be successful you need to be bright and articulate in order to be able to carry on a conversation with a client (and given the amount of money that can be spent these clients are not from the lowest socioeconomic rung), you must know how to market and sell and close a deal and above all else you must ensure the highest level of customer satisfaction as in this industry, where word of mouth is nearly the only form of objective advertisment, a few bad reviews can mean disaster. Are you so certain that they don't have skills? Pehaps they are formally educated but realized long ago that there was money to be made in the oldest trade and so they put their skills as well as their own attributes to work for them.

Ask yourself, would you continue to work if you didn't have to? You would hope that the economic engine which supports your income continues to turn just as those in this business hope that it continues to turn for them whether they come to the bed (didn't think table made sense here) because they want to or have to. If the SPs who come to this business to make money have made enough money, do they retire?

For those women who would not choose to be in the business but who are here just the same, I am truly sorry for them and hope that they can find emancipation at some point and then make an informed and conscious decision as to whether or not they want to continue to do what they do.

 

[Questor]

I have travelled throughout SE Asia and China a number of times, but would hesitate to call the sum of all that "alot of time" or enough to draw an unambiguous line between sweat shop work and sex work in the developing world. So it's more than reading but less than direct experience, shall we say. Myself and others would be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think the boundary between the two aint that much of a boundary, if experiences via considerable time in the areas informs your view. A relevant consideration in thinking about the distinction will always be, not the degree of choices available, but the relative freedom to make choices per se.

If you have travelled through SE Asia and China a number of times, then I doubt your point of reference is so different from mine as I was suggesting earlier. The way I see it, the majority of people in the countries of which I speak do not have the same life choices or opportunities as we do here in Canada. But they make their way through life as best they can, much as we do. For some, this leads them to sex work. I don't see how my choice as a customer to participate with them is detrimental to their well being or harmful in any way. There is a fair exchange in which both parties get what they need/desire.

Yes, there is a certain level of economic coercion. Same with the waitress who brings me my breakfast in the restaurant that same morning. I am sure she would rather be doing other things, but through economic necessity she is there bringing me my breakfast. For sure, sex work is different in that the lady is asked to provide more intimate services than waitressing. But again, if the lady is treated respectfully by both customer and employer, this is the thing that separates acceptable from unacceptable, in my mind.

Now to the issue of maquilas/sweatshops. I did a quick search for maquila working conditions. The first 2 web sites had the following:

http://www.newint.org/easier-english/Garment/sweatmexico.html

Bad pay, bad conditions
Pay and working conditions can be terrible. This is what two women told human rights workers about the maquila where they work in Tehuacan, south-east of Mexico City:
Each shift is from 8.30 am until 8.30 pm , but if workers do not complete the number of clothes they have been told to make that day, they must work longer without any pay;
On Saturdays, people must work from 8 am until 5 pm without a lunch break;
Workers are paid between $30 and $50 per week;
Girls as young as 12 and 13 work in the factory;
When workers leave the factory (to go to lunch or to go home) they are searched to make sure they haven't stolen anything;
When women are hired, they are tested to see if they are pregnant. If they are pregnant, they are fired.
If you arrive 15 minutes late, you must work for 3 days without pay.
When one man was sick for a day, he lost a whole week's pay.

http://www.trinity.edu/dspener/soci_3326_free/projects-spring-2002/maquila/living.html
Health and Living Conditions
Border cities are generally very poor, especially those border cities closest to the maquiladoras. The maquilas pay very low wages and their workers struggle to buy necessities such as food and clothing. Few people have the resources to either see a doctor or pay for medications. This leads to many health problems. One of the more shocking health problems is anencephaly, "a birth defect in which the infant's brain fails to develop," (injuryboard.com 2002). In 1995, "Six babies were born with no brains or only partial brains in a four-month period," (Kimsey 1995). There was no released information as to the cause of the rare birth defects. Babies born without brains or with partial brains do not live long, if at all. Researchers speculate that the cause of the birth defect may be due to pollution and the high concentrations of chemicals used in maquilas and factories along the border (injuryboard.com 2002). Nervous system problems, especially stomach problems, are also common in the poor border cities. Researchers note the increasing numbers in gastrointestinal disease as a result of poor water quality and lack of availability. Other health problems include Hepatitis A, tuberculosis, dengue fever, cholera, asthma, and diabetes. Many of these diseases are due, in part, to the low numbers of immunizations at the border.

Oh, and I am sure if I searched a little further, I could find references to young wormen/girls who are forced to have sex with work supervisors if they want to keep their job. Its easy for most of us to go into a GAP store and buy clothing guilt free because we are somewhat removed from the process. But those workers are oppressed in that way to bring us cheaply made clothing and profits for the owners.

So here we are, hanging out on an escort review board. What for you makes participation in the sex industry okay in Canada (presuming that you are in fact in Canada) while it is somehow morally repugnant in the developing world? A young woman here in Toronto wants to put herself through university. I'm not sure what it costs per year these days. Tuition, books, living expenses. No family to pay for all those things. Three years of university, minimum. Graduate with perhaps $60,000 debt, and that's with part time jobs to make ends meet. And no guarantee of a good job at the end of it. So she chooses sex work. I say that's economic coercion. But I don't mind helping her through school at all. I repect her for her choices.

Sorry that my reply is a bit wordy. Your question, nolabel, is a good one. Its a complex moral issue that can not be answered in a few short words.

 

[Brill]

Are you so certain that they don't have skills? Pehaps they are formally educated but realized long ago that there was money to be made in the oldest trade and so they put their skills as well as their own attributes to work for them.

That's a very good point you made in an interesting post.

I think you're correct, most women develop skills to deal with men wanting them early on and use them all their lives. To take another step and make money from it is an additional skill that is learned, often on the job.
The business has many pros and cons, hopefully they enter it with their eyes open.

 

[genintoronto]

I wanted to see the result, I figured it would be overwhelmingly "no".

I suspect what is going on is that the question in the article was "lured, tricked or trafficked" and I suspect that the definition of "trafficked" is the source of the problem.

Indeed, and as Questor and nolabel have brought it up, the issue of "choice" is a little more complex than it appears when you take structural conditions (such as poverty and economic inequalities between the North and the South) into account.

For instance, McClintock (a feminist in favor of sex workers rights) notes that most women who enter the sex trade do so “because it is better paid, is more flexible, is independent of marriage, and has for better working and leisure hours than most forms of women’s work”, adding that “certainly, this fact reflects very poorly on our societies”. She also notes that “the conditions, wages, working hours, lack of mobility, and levels of physical exhaustion of domestic workers around the world are often far worst than those of sex workers”. But, as she suggests, “because the careers of professional women and men depend so often on the services of a politically invisible, international class of female domestic workers” no international call has gone up to ban domestic work (rather, the "trafficking" of domestic workers is facilitated by states by programs such as the Canadian domestic workers immigration special program).

See [FONT=&quot]Anne McClintock (1993) “Sex Workers and Sex Work”, Social Text, 37, Special Section.

Interestingly enough,[/FONT] while the distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution was first coined by the prostitutes’ rights movement in order to challenge the assumptions of a dominant discourse about prostitution and women’s sexuality by claiming that prostitution could be a choice, many sex workers’ organization and ‘sex work’ feminists (particulalry from the third world) now argue that this distinction should be rejected. They criticize this forced/voluntary distinction for creating false divisions between sex workers, and for helping reproduce within the mainstream a madonna/whore dichotomy where the ‘forced’ prostitute is typically represented as the passive, innocent, and naïve third world women, who by virtue of her ‘victim’ status is exonerated of any sexual wrong-doing, and the whore is the ‘voluntary’ prostitute, typically the western emancipated woman capable of making rational choice, who deserves what she gets. Moreover, this distinction is also seen by many as having been co-opted by the mainstream, where the emphasis is put on condemning trafficking in women and protecting/rescuing the ‘victims’ of this traffic, and rarely on condemning the abuses of human rights of sex workers who are not ‘forced’. Overall, these critics see this distinction as serving to reinforce and legitimize practices that abuse the rights of all sex workers. They tend to favor an approach that focuses on the commonalities shared by all sex workers (such as their working conditions and the denial of prostitutes’ rights and the silence that surrounds it) and to call for a transformation of the sex industry, rather than its abolition (as the authors of the report that inspired this thread call for), much in the same way that the international labor movement has argued for the transformation of labor (namely through workers' rights), not its abolition.

 

[fuji]

Indeed, and as Questor and nolabel have brought it up, the issue of "choice" is a little more complex than it appears when you take structural conditions (such as poverty and economic inequalities between the North and the South) into account.

Sure.

Until we create a utopia in which everyone has everything they need or want at all times we are going to have to deal with economic scarcity. We in fact have much greater scarcities than we should have: We have broken, dysfunctional economic and political systems that fail to come anywhere near close to what we could optimally provide for people, and even then, the very best we could do even in theory would fail to provide for many people's needs, or at least their wants.

It's nice to sit back in an armchair and rail about how unfair this is, but at some point, we have to step down out of the clouds and deal with the reality on the ground that we face in the world today.

We aren't going to achieve utopia overnight, nor are we even going to come close. There are so many problems to fix, in so many places, that the best we can hope for is incremental change: A gradual improvement in the lot of the lives of the poorest on the planet. In that task we are doing fairly well--primarily owing to the reforms in places like China literally billions have been lifted out of a half-life of desperation and starvation, and into one in which they are still terribly poor, but at least no longer starving to death in such large numbers. Minimal medical services have even been provided, where previously none existed.

So we are making progress, but even with all that progress, and even if our progess exceeds our wildest expectations, we will still have many people whose needs are not always met, and whose wants rarely met.

In that world work under "horrible" conditions is preferable to starvation. Prostitution, hard labour, better than alternatives which represent far greater misery.

In fact, if it were COMPLETELY up to me, if I had a COMPLETELY free choice, I would never go to work: I would spend all my time travelling around the world fucking hot women and trying out interesting new food. Life does not provide me that alternative, I too buckle under the economic reality of my condition and show up to my job. Most of the women who choose to work as prostitutes did in fact have other viable choices: They were not doomed to an alternative of starvation and death. Their alternative was work that they considered even harder and more miserable than what they chose to do, just as my job seems to me to be better than the alternatives available to me.

If we prevent people from taking these jobs, if we prevent them from working in sweat shops, if we prevent them from working as prostitutes, they are going to suffer far more than if we allow it.

I do think that their choices represent valid, correct choices: They are choosing what is best for them, out of all the possible alternatives.

 

[Aardvark154]

many sex workers’ organization and ‘sex work’ feminists (particulalry from the third world) now argue that this distinction should be rejected.

Gen perhaps it is because I'm reading quickly but this sounds more like an advocacy for making prostiution illegal than anything else.