Article on this "hobby"

[sideboob]

I would like to get people's reaction to the article/Q&A below. The client being interviewed is based in Montreal and posts on Merc. Two quotes that stand out for me are, "these men are not the average patron, and the sex workers and sex work activists VICE spoke to estimate they only represent a small percentage of the clientèle" (good to see in print what I already knew), and the client stating that "the boards are simply atrocious to all girls."

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/exkkm7/we-spoke-a-sex-industry-hobbyist-the-worst-kind-of-john

 

[Butler1000]

As usual a fair amount of BS. Especially about due dates on the ladies.
The best. Ones have been in it for awhile and understand it best.

His comment about Moderation on the other boards was telling. He basically dismissed them. That tells me he was banned from them.

 

[Aardvark154]

The one man who agreed to reply on the record seems rather peculiar or his comments have been edited to make him appear that way.

For instance I find it troubling that he seems obsessed with women's "power over you"

And I most certainly disagree that review boards are "atrocious" for escorts and that there isn't a market for escorts over the age of 22.

While I agree with him that in Montreal, particularly if you speak enough French to patronize French agencies, there is a good bit of turnover among young women new to the city. I disagree that this is because we are all pigs -- indeed even he seems to be contradictory in his statements about this.

 

[anon1]

If it bleeds, it leads
Vice is no different from other media. Only the salacious will draw attention.

 

[TFZL1]

Just like the instructions in the IKEA box, just one mans opinion of ONE way it could be done.
I could have answered those questions without the mysoginistic attitude. I don't think he represent the average review board hobbyist, closer to extreme, troll. Not all of us bash providers. Some of us encourage and support them.

 

[sweetiepieexo]

This is just one mans opinion. However his opinion can be very offensive to some girls because not a lot of us like to be referred to as whores. In fact no WOMAN regardless of her occupation likes to be called a whore. However I do agree with a couple of his statements... yes TFZL1 some of you do but usually when a girl has a bad review gents tend to feed into the drama even if they have not seen the girl and that is why he probably calls them atrocious for woman... its bros before hoes no? LOL.

 

[MattRoxx]

If it bleeds, it leads
Vice is no different from other media. Only the salacious will draw attention.

But there was no bleeding in the story. I'd even say the interview was bloodless and trite. And it's in Vice Blog, not a lead story on their site or media centre or whatever it is. Awkward to navigate.
I think I used to like Vice when it was more subversive and now it seems to be trying hard to be hip or edgy.

Anyway yeah one man's rather jaded point of view.

I've been to a few industry parties and it's fascinating that the hobbyist isn't a 'type'; all occupations, ages, shapes and sizes. So everyone has some similar but many different opinions, experiences, points of view.

I did have someone at a party say something similar, like that he "likes to see women new to the industry while they're still making love and aren't just going through the motions". Personally, I prefer women who have been at it for a while and know what they're doing and like it enough to continue.

 

[eternalbachelor]

The one man who agreed to reply on the record seems rather peculiar or his comments have been edited to make him appear that way.

For instance I find it troubling that he seems obsessed with women's "power over you"

is that unusual?

 

[Aardvark154]

is that unusual?

Yes, I'd say it is. In my day to day life I don't find most men obsessing about how women have "power over men" and that therefore they have to be 'put in their place,' and particularly in the terms the person interviewed used.

 

[anon1]

But there was no bleeding in the story. I'd even say the interview was bloodless and trite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language

 

[sweetiepieexo]

You may be a gentleman, however that's not the case with all the members on review boards.. I said I agree with his statement about it being atrocious BECAUSE of the points he made. When a girl gets a bad review regardless of who started the thread - the girl gets attacked by many many board members who may have not even seen her. I say this because I have had friends who its happened to and in the past it has happened to me . Review boards are BOTH GOOD & BAD . The pros? Lady can advertise, edit/delete reviews at their own discretion, decide who she wants to see based on posts, etc. the cons? one bad review can ruin your whole sp career, people are into drama a lot, anybody can post and you don't know what is legit and what is fake. What I'm saying is that I don't think review boards are all bad but I think they should have RULES where you can ONLY comment on a thread if you have seen that sp or if you need any info. Just my two cents. Theres reasons I try to stay away as much as possible from review boards. Sometimes what I read makes me nauseous, ive seen girls be callers "hookers" ,"hoes", "bitches", etc. To me regardless of our occupation , we are still ladies and it STILL is offensive. There is a difference between an HONEST review and a review bashing the lady every chance u get.... I have no problems with review boards- considering I'm a member on here - lol. However like everything are there pros and cons & I'm sure we all have our list of the pros/cons.

I like to think I'm a gentleman and tend to treat all women with respect, even when having the most unenjoyable session. I give honest reviews, whatever they may be. I ask this with all due respect...Why are you part of such an Industry and/or more specifically, why do you partake in such a board if you feel this way? Honest question, you don't need to answer, it's just a thought as I like to think there is more to gain from this board even with its flaws. Don't hate on me, it's just a question I asked myself about you after reading your post.

WIR

 

[eternalbachelor]

Yes, I'd say it is. In my day to day life I don't find most many obsessing about how women have "power over men" and that therefore they have to be 'put in their place,' and particularly in the terms the person interviewed used.

In my day to day life I see Joe Schmoes who accept that power as a given. I thought the hobbyist in the article very aptly described how that power works and how one can buy his way out of it. There is nothing there about putting women "in their place".

 

[rhuarc29]

I would like to get people's reaction to the article/Q&A below.

What's there to say? It's another hit job on Johns. They picked a single person, who they described themselves as "the worst kind of John", and used him to label all Johns as vulgar, predators of young women, who buy a woman's power away from them.

While there are undoubtedly Johns like that, you can find the worst of the worst in any group, including groups that go after Johns believing them to be scum.

 

[rhuarc29]

Yes, I'd say it is. In my day to day life I don't find most many obsessing about how women have "power over men" and that therefore they have to be 'put in their place,' and particularly in the terms the person interviewed used.

People use the weapons they have. Traditionally, that has been physical aptitude and wealth for men, and beauty for women. These attributes do indeed grant the bearer power. You can see how someone like the John in this article could feel resentful about the power wielded over him, just as any other imbalance of power. He obviously doesn't have a lot of power himself, and his ability to "strip" women of the power they wield over him gives him a sense of power himself.

That's a dark road to go down, and in fact is what many of those opposed to the legalization of prostitution reference as a reason: that pathetic men would use legalization as a pathway to deprive women of their power.

I do find it interesting how this ties in to how men and women view their own identity. Think of a man who rises from nothing to make something of himself, then crashes and burns because of a bad call. Despite being as well off as he originally was, he's now miserable and may even take his life. Why? Because so much of his identity had been caught up in being successful and wealthy and he can no longer be satisfied with less. It also explains why many men do unspeakable things in desperation to maintain such an identity. A substantial loss of wealth strips him of both identity and power, and he'd do anything to prevent that.

On the flip side, why is rape so traumatic for women, but less so for men? Is it because a woman's identity is more tied up with beauty and sexual desire? Does the rape strip them of their power and identity? Is that far off what the article is claiming?

 

[bigbangupper]

I don't identify as a "hobbyist," actually. I don't really see this as a hobby in the sampling-for-the-thrill-of-it sense. Admittedly, I was influenced by a blog article written by a mature SP who explained why she dislikes the notion of a "hobbyist." With that said, I don't like how the author of the article used the word "hobbyist" to describe a smaller group than all of the men who would call themselves that word.

It's undisputed that a woman's power in the context of sexual dynamics lies in her freedom to discriminate. Whether it's not enough wealth, the wrong height, too little confidence, being a non-White minority (statistically proven), inadequate social influence, and so on, she decides who gets rewarded and who doesn't. All prostitution does is allow a regular man to provide the payment up front to temporarily alleviate the discrimination (in whatever form it was) he was coping with. And the SP may further discriminate based on age, race, or a number of other factors even if the client is willing to pay the rate, so the willingness to pay is still not the only criteria. However, by accepting payment voluntarily, isn't she equalizing the loss of power in the exchange? I can understand the temptation to say that meeting an SP nullifies her sexual discrimination and therefore power is taken away from her, but I don't really believe that to be true if she is choosing to be paid to do that. I'd call it a trade, just like any other consensual sexual exchange. In the end, semantics are a big part of it. "Power" isn't an easy word to define, nor is it an easy variable to measure.

It's possible that Internet porn, social media, and fixations on sexual niches/fetishes have given rise to a new generation of johns who more or less just want to have sex with porn stars, and finding as many young SPs as possible who will do porn-like acts is how they're going to accomplish that. Technology and social changes have universally altered johns' expectations (including mine), and as a natural result, you're going to get some of the "worst kind of john" who try to reproduce a porn shoot and then write explicit reviews about it. That's how I see it, at least. But, I could be wrong, as I never partook in this industry prior to the Internet age.

On the flip side, why is rape so traumatic for women, but less so for men?

I wasn't aware that this had ever been concluded. Source?

 

[freedom3]

is that unusual?

It's the divorce laws, not pussies, that control men.

 

[eternalbachelor]

On the flip side, why is rape so traumatic for women, but less so for men?

that just can't be accurate. Particularly considering how homophobic even western society generally is, let alone 3rd world macho countries.