Escorts, please speak up, "When men buy sex they enslave women"

[winstar]

Blah blah blah, we're all slaves to the dollar.

In my line of work, I can assure you that I have to figuratively suck a lot of cock that I'd rather not. I have to or have had to put up with working with bosses that are morons, clients who treat you like shit, abusive labour practices, and petty politics day in and day out.

It is the price I pay. It's the price we all pay.

The world doesn't give a shit.

But as to the original topic, the notion of female sex workers being exploited, it's a novel thought, but there are SPs on this board who charge 250 an hour, 350 an hour, 500 an hour and the men pay. There is not a single career out there - Doctor, lawyer, Engineer, Accountant, teacher, whatever that pays that kind of coin. (Male or female.) It's the free market baby and the free market has determined that a few square inches of hair covered triangle are worth more than what a neurosurgeon can make per hour. That's insane.

A guy will pay 300 bucks a shortened hour for the thrill of putting his cock inside a good looking woman, but would probably gag at the thought of dropping 300 bucks on a birthday present for the wife.

Pussy.

It's the most valuable commodity a woman has to offer.

I love it! Well said Kirk. Again the issue is choice, you can be in difficult financial circumstances, experience sexism in the work place etc etc etc, that doesn't mean you should become an escort. There's no judgement on my part on those who recognize that they can make a lot of money as an escort and choose to do so because the social, political and economic climate is not ideal. I know a lot of ladies who don't escort (even though they could make a lot of money from it) because they choose not to, even though it would vastly improve their financial circumstances.

Pussy is the most expensive commodity in the world, why do you think men do all the things they do (i.e. lie, steal, cheat, kill, go to war, get a degree, etc.) its all to ensure their daily dose of vitamins c and p (c*nt and pussy) meet their recommended daily allowance. As a guy, I actually believe that those suckers who do get into a relationship actually end up paying more for less (i.e. more in terms of time and money, and less in terms of variety of sexual partners, and experiences). As such, I am pro escort rather than putting up with all the bullsh*t that men do with just to be with a girl. Plus, once you do get into a serious relationship, there's no guarantee she'll be faithful, that you can trust her - especially with your money, stupid arguments galore, and only one vagina. Then if you finally do get married, you risk losing 50% of your life's worth, to someone whom you've only known for a couple of years and did nothing to earn it. Girls go into marriage and if things go bad they come back with 50% of a man's worth. Men go into a relationship, and if things go bad, they lose 50% of their worth. No wonder women are so eager to marry. They should list women as dependents on a tax return, and give each married man tax credits for being married cause I know a whole lot of men who end up supporting their lady's spending addictions, and marrying ladies with no life skills whatsoever (i.e. knowing how to budget, manage their finances or even cook). What's the point these days? Just call an escort when you want to get laid, and save your money, mind, and heart. Marriage and dating is more exploitative than escorting in this country.

 

[Rockslinger]

Pussy is the most expensive commodity in the world, why do you think men do all the things they do (i.e. lie, steal, cheat, kill, go to war, get a degree, etc.) .

It is hardwired in men's DNA. Back in the old days, men needed women to procreate. One of the prizes that went to men successful in war was women. Men would then mate with these women and procreate. Children were a resource that would defend the family farm, work the family farm and look after their elders.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

That women (ALL women) are in sexwork against their will they just don't know it yet.

me: I am certainly not ashamed of what I do or who I am. I do not equate sexuality with shame. I really enjoy my clients and the things we do together. I feel empowered. My clients are nice, kind, interesting people.

her: sure you do and I am sure that they are (insert eye roll). It is nice to be on a pedestal. Especially if you are someone who needs the attention for validation. But I caution you...it is a long way to fall.

Madison, your opponent is repeatedly making the error, logically, of falsely assigning motive. She is basically saying that SHE knows YOUR reasons for doing something. This is always a false, and trivial argument. One can argue OTHER THIRD PARTY'S motives, but to tell your opponent what THEIR motive is cannot be justified. It turns the argument away from a discussion of the facts, into a "Yes you are" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" shouting match, suitable for children in schoolyards but not for a reasoned discussion amongst adults.

YOU could always turn it around, and say, "well my dear, since I see we are reading each others minds here, I know that YOU don't really belive that but are just advancing this position because it gets you noticed and advances your career". When she objects, you then say, "Tell you what then, I won't tell YOU what your motives are, and you don't tell ME what my motives are".

And when she says, "They just don't know it" - Basically, this can be rewritten as, " I have superior knowledge, let me decide this issue for the small people out there with small minds." This is and always will be the call of the non-democratic, technocrat-based society. The small average person can't decide things for themselves. Academia is rife with these types of individuals who think they are the ones society should be unquestioningly relying on. The great strength of democracy is that you rely on the common sense of the COMMON man, not the technocrats, and although it won't always come through immediately, eventually common sense prevails.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

I have some hereditary, chronic health problems that have contributed significantly to my lack of success in maintaining a "real job". This has been quite demoralizing - much more than being an SP has been.

But this fact never quite fits into the reverse sexism of Malarek types: that a woman might choose this over something else and be happier for it. All jobs and all circumstances have trade offs, things we can live with and things we can't. To argue against the sex trade is like arguing against water.

The sheer irony of guys like Malarek is they simply drive it underground again when they demonize it.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

This is likely because the media is itself uncomfortable in writing about prostitution. On 1 hand, it's a great thing to write about because sex sells newspapers and magazines.

OTOH, it's a shitty thing to write about because if you write about it a lot, some people are going to start suggesting that you are in favour of it. And god knows, no self-respecting media organization or personality wants to be seen as pro-prostitution.

So the media plays a little game. They write about prostitution, but make sure they condemn it. Or they write about it and are positive, but very carefully so. They select a "politically correct" person to "support" in her choice of being a prostitute. And because all this is fake BS anyhow, the person they choose is a cartoon. The "empowered street hooker" is carefully chosen because she is "different" from the middle class woman reader, but admirable in some of her qualities. And of course, there is a ready-made feminist myth that can be safely and readily applied to the person in question.

Possibly if someone wrote and article in the Globe about how those readers' own daughters might possibly be prostitutes and how those daughters might perhaps be merely ambivalent about that choice - the way we are all ambivalent about our jobs - the result might be a little too much reader discomfort to be acceptable.

This is a great post. Very true.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

I don't believe that sex work is inherently exploitative and oppressive, as Malarek and some feminists argue. But simultaneously, I can't deny the sexism and mysogyny that is very much present in this industry. A cursory look at Terb on any given day is a testament to this: guys bitching about YMMV ("yes yes, it's her choice and all that, but shouldn't there be a limit to this?"), comparisons between the services we provide and buying a car (the very YMMV analogy is telling here), the number rating of SP's bodies, face, services, attitude, personality, etc., guys complaining about rates with comments which often scream of sense of entitlement to women's bodies, the numerous "dating advices" thread where women are being denigrated, etc.
.

This is not sexism, it is people comparing a "product" that has been commodified! You're the one that's taken something "sacred" (note the quotes) and put it into the consumer culture, and then you call it "sexist"??? That is rich. This is the classic thing that SP's often do: go and EXPLOIT men's weakness for pussy and company, and then complain that it's "sexist". You think that men feel entitled to women's bodies only in the paid environment?? Or that women don't feel entitled to men's wealth and status just by virtue of being hot??? Please. You're promoting the very thing you're lamenting. You are here charging men to idolize your body and your sex! I'm all for it, but check your shadow please.

The conceit of too many SP's is that they think they've figured men out, when in fact they've figured out how to charge men for sex. The truth is that men are slavishly devoted to women in the carnal sense, and there's a marketplace for that. Who's the exploited?

The real truth of the business of sex is that there is power in all corners and weakness in all corners, just like life. Sometimes women have power, sometimes men do. Economic realities make the power shift even more dramatic. I'd say someone like Miss Maya, who charges a $1000 per session, and decides who she wants to sleep with via a picture screening, has figured out the power. Why? Because she's cornered a niche that men feel ashamed about (the strap on), and whenever there's shame, men pay. Weakness, strength, weakness, strength. It must be fucking fantastic to have your rent paid in two hours a month! Brilliant!! Now that's power.

What you're complaining about is the review culture, which has now permeated every part of our consumer culture. Credit cards are reviewed, hotels are reviewed, cars are reviewed. Why should the BUSINESS of sex be any different??? That's not sexism, it's capitalism circa 2009 Internet. Guess what, it's dehumanizing to all people, but so is the body culture we have now. On the street every day, people's bodies are talked about like meat, and NOT JUST BY THE GUYS. Women are savage when talking about each other. Is that "sexism"?

Everything that makes a real world relationship intoxicating--like chemistry, chance, uncertainty, soul and true eroticism--is mostly removed when you commodify it and routinize it. But that's the marketplace. The Internet has most certainly destroyed the "courtesan".

I do agree with you that nuance is impossible when talking about this. Too much societal baggage, hypocrisy and downright fear of the power of sex. It's so weighted. People are always scared to take the side in public that they perform in private.

 

[Schon]

In my opinion its not the case over here in Canada that a women is enslaved,
most of them do it by their own choice and preference, and earn what Dr's & Lawyers are not earning these day's, & many of them deal on cash basis, therefore they even deprive the country of Tax Revenue, as most of them still dont have any credit cards, and unable to get one from known DFI's or Banks.
Some of them even charge for 15-minutes of their time and companionship, i do recall i had gone on a lunch date with a Rip-Off SP, who after having a bumper lunch and drinks, walks into an optical shop & bought a designer's Sun Glasses worth $475 which i had to pay to please her,(on previous outings also i had to buy several gifts for her) or her usual tantrums which were going on would have increased by many folds, i am happy that Lord saved me from such a Rip-Off Artist! Therefore its not totally right to say that women in adult industry are enslaved by men, rather these day's men are enslaved by women, thinking they are 24/7 ATM's for them.

 

[tboy]

Women are savage when talking about each other. Is that "sexism"?

That isn't sexism, that is BI sexism lol......

Mao brings up an interesting point: about turning one's sex into a commodity or product.

I think this is kind of the chicken or the egg scenario. If men weren't naturally predetermined to "mate", then there would be no need for prostitutes. At some point a woman figured out how to turn those urges into a money making situation. A typical need/service situation. There is a need in society, and people to fill those needs for money.

I don't think it is reasonable to turn your "sex" into a service for money then complain because it is treated like any other service. Take the medical profession for example: doctors and nurses do all sorts of things which are as, and often more, intimate than sex and people (both men and women) are constantly reviewing them....

Now let's take the fashion industry for example. Is this industry geared towards men? I don't think so. Frankly most of the men I know could care less that a woman wears a designer dress or one from Walmart. Sure, one could argue that the whole fashion industry to geared towards "women attracting men" but frankly, I think it is more geared towards women showing off to other women than men.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

Geez, maybe us guys are the victims! Lured into temptation by these ladies, hooking us on their wares until we are enslaved by our addictions.

 

[A.J. Raven]

I have to say I am enjoying this thread more than any previous on TERB. Often I find myself irritated by such discussions here as they are often filled with inflamatory remarks rather than objective & informed exchanges. I have to admit that some comments here have provoked new ways to look at things - and since I (sometimes arrogantly) consider myself more of an itellectual than anything else, this is good - for my brain, my business & my ego. Kudos to all.


At the risk of going slightly off topic here...

The "men are programed instinctually to sleep with many women" position has been mentioned here and I think it's necessary to present this in it's completion, which I have yet to see occur. First, I agree with this... mostly. The second part of this, which is never mentioned when it comes up (pardon the pun) is the responsibilty of the male to protect the female, from other males, the elements & especially during gestation, and until the resulting child reaches maturity. Since we're talking evolution here, why would the male of our species have evolved (or been created, for all you creationists out there) to be the stronger one, physically speaking? Of course, to ensure procreation by being able to over-power the female. But, since "love" & "attraction" exists, this is the lesser of the 2 reasons. The main reason is to protect that female from other males and to provide for her. Venturing too far from home for food would be dangerous. Protecting the child until it reaches maturity and can defend itself (or in the case of a girl, find a mate to protect her) ensures continuation of the line.

I often hear generalized comments about how women look to men as ATM's rather than partners. Money has come to replace brute strength in providing food & security, and since those are the responsibilty of the male from an evolutionary standpoint, it goes to reason the male must still provide these things.

In a marriage (until recent history) the male provided these things and also partook of the wares he bought - a house, a car, televisions, food etc.. - and benefited from the work his female did - cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, dinner parties for the boss for carreer advancement etc...

In the world of sex work (or dating for that matter) the male pays in cash or gifts but does not remain to protect the woman from other males, for the gestation period or to take care of the child (in the event of a child). From an evolutionary standpoint a woman relies on a male for protection and provisions, in exchange for companionship, nurturing & offspring.

For those men that resent paying, I think it is necessary to understand that your evolutionary role is to protect women - not just to have sex with as many as possible. The money you pay women is in lieu of your presence. The only reason women are safe in our society is because the men have agreed to keep us safe. One only has to look to other areas of the world to see this is true. As women we rely on you. I think our society has become such that it is easy to forget this. We think men & women are equal because we have been told this. We are equally important for the continuation of the species, as we both have very specific & important roles to fill. But somewhere along the line "equal" became "the same". We are NOT the same, and I think ignoring this has been more of a detriment.

There is much more I could say on this, including how birth control has affected this dynamic, but I've written alot and risk turning this into an off-topic essay. If anyone cares about my "politics" to put my comments into context: I am not a feminist. I believe in the "old-fashioned" dynamic of marriage - man goes out to work, woman stays at homewith kids. I am an SP.



PS: As it relates to the topic of this thread, I prefer to view the money I receive as an escort as receiving the above mentioned protection from men, in lieu of a marriage to one man for that same protection. I am not enslaved. I am fullfilling my role as a woman (in a limited way) in exchange for the limited fullfillment by the men I meet of their roles. I am sure Malarek and the anti-sex work feminists would say I was delusional. I'm okay with that because frankly, I think they're delusional.

 

[tboy]

LOL good post Raven but we don't pay women instead of having to stick around and protect them, we pay them to leave afterwards lol....(but in one sense those two are relatively the same on a basic level).

But to look at us on a physiological level, if men weren't meant to procreate with as many females as possible, we would be more physically similar to women in our sperm or reproduction rate. Women can ONLY have 1 baby every 11 months (I think that's the number) but men can impregnate 10 women a day, every day, day in and day out....(or until our heart gives out). Maybe that's why men die earlier in life than women? We spend so much energy producing trillions of sperm that our bodies just say ENOUGH lol....

I can see your analogy of the money/protection aspect. By the amount of money you receive it provides you with the means to house, clothe and protect yourself from outside influences. Interesting point there........

 

[tboy]

Geez, maybe us guys are the victims! Lured into temptation by these ladies, hooking us on their wares until we are enslaved by our addictions.

truer words have never been spoken my friend! Particularly the word "hooking" and "a dict tions" lol.......

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Geez, maybe us guys are the victims! Lured into temptation by these ladies, hooking us on their wares until we are enslaved by our addictions.

You can make a very strong argument for this, actually. There are many men on this board who have and will be ruined by the SP's of this city.

But it's a two way street as there are many women who will put up with fat, ugly, stupid, backward and downright piggish men to fatten up their bank accounts.

Addiction is a two way street.

 

[A.J. Raven]

LOL good post Raven but we don't pay women instead of having to stick around and protect them, we pay them to leave afterwards lol....(but in one sense those two are relatively the same on a basic level).

But to look at us on a physiological level, if men weren't meant to procreate with as many females as possible, we would be more physically similar to women in our sperm or reproduction rate. Women can ONLY have 1 baby every 11 months (I think that's the number) but men can impregnate 10 women a day, every day, day in and day out....(or until our heart gives out). Maybe that's why men die earlier in life than women? We spend so much energy producing trillions of sperm that our bodies just say ENOUGH lol....

I can see your analogy of the money/protection aspect. By the amount of money you receive it provides you with the means to house, clothe and protect yourself from outside influences. Interesting point there........

I agree with you. But a man would (or should, in a perfect evolutionary world) limit the number of women he impregnates to those his resources could provide for. If evolution was simply a matter of odds, (ie. the more offspring you create the better the chance your line will continue) then there would be no reason for the male to have the physical strength it does. The existance of attraction, feelings of connection & love negate the male needing to overpower the female. the amount of strength a male (generally) possesses far exceeds what is required to overpower a female, so that lends to my point of it being present for other reasons - overpowering other males, dealing with the natural elements, etc...

PS: It seems the gestational period of an animal is directly related to the length of time from birth to maturity, though I have never done the math on this. Species with a long time from birth to maturity also have a longer gestational period; and those with shorter time between birth & maturity have a shorter gestational period. It seems this is to develop attachement to ensure the mother continues to protect and provide for the offspring until maturity. The male also develops attachement, though perhaps less than the female, during this gestational period while protecting the female to ensure his offspring reaches the birth stage.

A previous poster.. or perhaps it was another thread - I'll have to review... talked about the reasoning behind women being called "sluts" and how it was derogatory and how it's an accomplishment for men to sleep around. His argument sounds reasonable at face value, and certainly fits what contemporary society has become. But I believe this same poster used the evolutionary "men are programmed" argument (again, I'll have to review) which I think is a fallacy in that it is incomplete. To reason that evolution is responsible for promiscuity among men, then to dismiss evolutionary clues lending to a responsibility tied to that behavior is only convenient & self-serving. This is akin to taking Bible passages out of context in support of an argument that in context clearly has no relevance. If the evolutionary argument is going to be used, then it must be used in it's entirety to be valid.

To take it a little further, if it were not for birth control, these "studs" would ultimately be awarded the same scarlet letter worn by the sluts of the world. I think it is safe to say that men & women alike look down upon those men who abandon their children and the women who bare them - we call them "deadbeat dads". Not to be confused with those fathers who want to be involved, are taken to the cleaners and ultimately rendered destitute with no relationship to speak of. Pre-birth control days a premiscuous man was called a philanderer and was not looked upon favourably.

 

[SkyRider]

the amount of strength a male (generally) possesses far exceeds what is required to overpower a female, so that lends to my point of it being present for other reasons - overpowering other males, dealing with the natural elements, etc...

An example in the animal kingdom (and mankind could also be considered part of the animal kingdom) is the Silverback Gorilla. Does anybody know if the Silverback is monogynous?

 

[Jade4u]

It should read ex husbands that lie about income and work cash under the table and do not pay the fullest amount possible of themselves and go and get re married and further have more children enslave ex spouses and ex children. Considering the cost of child care and raising of children leaving little possibilities to the caregiver prostitution is a life saver for many women and they are NOT enslaved by the men they are rescued by the other men that they see. If one man cannot do the job they set out to do or that the woman believed at the time that they would do why not have the help of other men. To top it off at least the woman still gets a sexually active life and a means of survival.

You have to look at what brought the woman into the industry in the first place. It could be a number of reasons 1. broken marriages and no means of advancing past minimum wage paying jobs possibly with children that would need more than minimum wage paying jobs to provide adequate care givers. 2. broken family homes ie... having to leave home at an early age to fend for themselves and seek out an education to advance later in life. Leaving them the burden of education costs.
3. In some cases divorced women also seek out the further education to advance further leaving them with the cost of paying back osap etc...
4. for some they are already in well paying jobs and seek more money and could possibly be teachers, nurses etc...

None the less imho it does not mean that the women do not enjoy the sex and/or feel enslaved. Bottom line they want and/or need the monies and want the sex as well. If looking at it in this way how can a woman be enslaved when she needs the money and it is rescuing her or giving her extra spending money above that of a good paying job.

The day of the internet is here and bottom line imho is that if the provider were a drug user and entrapped in this career choice for the use of drugs word would get out and I do not believe that the majority of men on here would have anything to do with that sort of provider or engage in that sort of risky behaviour.

The providers make the choices to be here for whatever reason and that is not the men that buy sex that are enslaving them. If anything they are giving them thier future freedom. With the exception of those on drugs etc...

 

[winstar]

I think all of the responses here have been well thought out and reasonable points of view even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them. The only thing I can say is that evolutionary reasons for explaining behavior does not replace personal responsibility for one's actual behavior.

Things have changed even from my parents generation. I look at old Playboy magazines and the writing was much more misogynic than it is today. If literature in Playboy was indicative of the view towards women during that time, I can honestly see why women made a strong push towards feminism. However, now it seems women feel that there are entitled to a man's worth with the argument being they are a woman and they deserve it.

Uh, no.

I work hard for my money, and someone deserves it if they invest in me to the extent that my financial investment in them pays off. Nobody puts money into an investment with the expectation that they are not going to make a return on their investment (in this case being love, trust, loyalty, the ability to do things that make me feel wonderful - i.e. instead of nagging at me as soon as I walk through the door, bring me an ice cold beer and give me a blowjob on the sofa without saying a word.) Investing in a women for the purposes of dating and marriage might have made sense during my parents time, when women could and did cook and clean, did rub a man's back when he got home, and took care of him. Nowadays, women do jack all, and still expect a man to take them out. Not a good return on my investment.

To put it another way, if my best friend said to me, I'll be your friend, but you will have to take me out every friday and saturday night, and pay for everything, and in return you'll get to be my friend. And then they give you the reason that you should do this is because they are a good friend and deserve it, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves, because that is not a friend. They make their friendship conditional on how much I pay. This is exactly what women do. They make their love and companionship conditional on how much you pay. How many times you take them out every friday and sat. night, whether you pay or not. etc. etc. etc. And say they deserve it because they are women. From this perspective, there is no distinction between what an SP does, and what a girlfriend does except that with an SP, they are more honest about what they do and how much they charge. You don't worry that they'll cheat on you or leave you, and you know that if you invest x amount of dollars, you are going to get your money's worth. Girlfriends aren't even good friends to begin with, either to each other or to their men. I honestly can't go for that being an intelligent, well educated, successful man. If women want the best, they will have to treat men much better than they do presently. Thus far, I haven't seen evidence of that.

 

[A.J. Raven]

I guess it was only a matter of time until this tread, too, went into the crapper.

 

[tboy]

I guess it was only a matter of time until this tread, too, went into the crapper.

I don't think it is that bad. Win made some good points.

In not long ago times, women WERE meant to be homemakers, raise the children, keep the home and the man (as in your posts) was supposed to provide her with a roof, food, clothing, and protect her from other males. I mean I loved the series Mad Men and couldn't fricken BELIEVE how the women were treated. So much so that I asked older family members who worked in offices in that time frame if it was accurate...(and yes, it was 100% accurate).

Now our lines are blurred, women are no longer just homemakers/mothers/wives. They are educated, employed, independant and all this being equal, equal to men...except when it comes to dating and relationships. I know it is slowly changing with stay at home dads and more and more women being the bread winner but I don't feel it is fair to say that women are sexually exploited when they express or chose their own career. Maybe women in the past were but those were traditional (natural?) patterns as described by Raven.

Now Jade, one (female or male) has to take responsibilities for her lot in life. I find it funny how many women complain about their ex husbands yet rarely say "I made the wrong decision, I take responsibility for my actions" (in choosing whom they mated with). I have yet and disbelieve any woman if she said "he held me down and raped me and forced me to have kids". (Not saying this doesn't happen but the vast majority it rarely does). On the other hand, should an exhusband be driven to living in squallor so that his kids and ex wife can live in luxury?

I'm not sure if you know this but from the family court's perspective, if an exhusband loses his job, he STILL has to pay the same amount in child support. I found this INSANE since if he was still married the kids wouldn't be living in luxury if he lost his job yet if he isn't, they can be. This to me only gives rise to the thought that if a man loses his job while married with kids, the wife can think: If I leave him he'll have to keep me and the kids in a higher standard of living than if I stay with him...why should I stay?

 

[moresex4me]

Guys, stop bashing the ladies. I know a lot of you have not had good experiences with women, which is why you hobby. That's not the case for everybody, and not all women are the same (the same as I'm not the same as some of the guys on here). We're all individuals, and responsible for our own actions, regardless of evolution, or rather because of it (we developed a cognitive brain and can make choices).

Bottom line: unless a woman is being forced into prostitution by a pimp, or is an enslaved foreigner, SP's are not slaves, they have made the choice to do what they do for a million reasons under the sun. Is it the best choice for them? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, just like everything else. What's different here is the Victorian attitudes our society is still stuck with, i.e. sex = evil.

This thread has now officially gone sideways...