First, let me say that I've been fortunate/privileged enough to not experience the world of exploitative practices by 'pimps', in my own work or that of my friends. So while I would never say that exploitation, abuse and violence does not exist -- I just don't have the experience to speak to that.
I did however, want to chime in on the idea of a 'pimp' under current Canadian law (now before the courts) - specifically the legislation regarding 'living off the avails'. This law is supposed to target 'pimps' but also catches within its nets: agencies, spouses/partners, drivers/bodyguards, booking agents, etc.
Sometimes what may seem to be a clearcut 'pimp' (ie the example above of an SP 'pimped out' by her husband), may actually be a more complicated situation. Let me turn it around. If a man is a sole breadwinner of a family, for example, has a law practice and supports his wife and children with his earnings, are they 'living off the avails' of his earnings as a lawyer? If sex work was considered legitimate work (which it is), and a wife was supporting her family with her earnings as a sex worker, would her stay-at-home husband have to be considered negatively as a 'pimp'?
Again, I'm not saying that exploitation, abuse and violence does not exist. I am trying to complicate the idea of a 'pimp' and the idea that it is always a negative experience/transaction.
And agencies - could they not be understood as 'pimps'? Like many pimps, they do advertising, supply a client base, organize schedules and bookings, and provide a driver if necessary. And they take a very healthy chunk of a sex workers earnings (40%+). This is not necessarily a negative transaction - many sex workers prefer to work with agencies for the work that they do for them. And some sex workers may also prefer to work with someone who may be referred to as a 'pimp', for the same reasons.
Food for thought.
Enjoy your holiday Monday!
xox Charley
