What Happened tp the Ottawa Scene?
- Thread starter Dodd2016
- Start date
No need to be sorry Kay, this whole OIC discussion is very much related to the overall Ottawa SP scene. And even though you're both strongly opiniated about it, respect is maintained throughout which feels like a breath of fresh air compared to the shitfest most debate on TERB end up being.
Cheers !
Cheers !
Can you DM or share your twitter handle please? And to clarify, I wasn’t offering to review the application status. I said if what you shared showed proof of misconduct or prejudicial practices I’d bring it up within OIC to address the issue and make sure it doesn’t get repeated. You’ve made it very clear you have no desire to be part of OIC.
You’re pointing out times where members were found to be violating the code of conduct they agreed to with prejudicial practices... those were addressed and resolved. The practices you’re talking about go directly against our statement of values and code of conduct....
I’m a black provider, I understand your concerns about people with harmful behaviour being part of the collective and not being held accountable. I don’t share your concerns because I know that members are held accountable. Your honesty isn’t a threat, but the misleading statements are a concern.
(I will add that the increase in diversity in our membership is the product of there being more diversity in people who are looking to join. People have never be excluded from joining based on race.)
I’m not sure how requiring screening info from clients is sexist? Anyone who requires screening info requires it from anyone they see. That includes people who aren’t men. And not all providers are women.
Whether or not you choose to screen is your choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that screening is a practice that objectively helps to minimize risk in an industry where we are targeted and very vulnerable to harm. For those of us who have ability to and choose to screen, it reduces those risks. Clients have more ways to engage with the industry and minimize risk than we do as providers.
It has nothing to do with respect, it’s about safety. And I think you know that. I really can’t figure out what you goal is here? I know privacy and respect are important, which is why those of us who do ask for screening info are careful with that information. Doing otherwise would jeopardize our business and livelihood.
The differences between clients and providers and anonymity is rooted in the same reality that influences people choosing to screen- .
You seem reasonably conscious of the world around you. When you examine the space where anonymity in the industry and safety meet, (taking the history of the industry into consideration,) who is more at risk of harm? Who’s physical safety is more at risk if they engage in the industry without being completely anonymous? The disparity has nothing to do with valuing our privacy over the privacy of clients, it’s about prioritizing our safety over anonymity.
Ummmm.... ?????????
“Highest ranking individuals.” You are aware that we are a group without a hierarchy right? People in decision making roles are elected as representatives and are accountable to membership. Everyone has a say and we have ways to handle conflicts of interest.
Conflict of interest concerning money? You’ve completely lost me here. I have no idea what you’re referring to.
First, there is no OIC incall. There is no incall that is set up as a space formally run by the collective that all members have access to.
Second, I’m not really clear on why you feel you can’t refer vulnerable people to the collective and why you believe it’s impossible for them to access any support services we are able to offer?
Also, gag order?
My apologies as well to everyone for disrupting the thread.
Be well.
Both the Ottawa and Montreal collective absolutely have a hierarchy, even members inside the collective know this and voice it often. This is kind a fact, especially if each individual member is not having a full vote on all matters concerning the collective(which you don't).
I'm also curious how one is supposed to "mend bridges" if all you receive in a rejection email is "Several members feel unsafe around you, so therefore you will not be granted access to community"? I'm dying to know
I also have plenty of receipts showing OIC causing harm and drama to sex workers outside of the group, which some members of POWER can back up. All the OIC members who know of these issues are too afraid to speak up in case it shakes their spot inside the collective. That sounds nice and safe though
OIC also has a male provider currently working with them that is on several blacklists and is known for stealthing and other assaulting behaviour, who's holding him accountable?
Yes I personally have strong biases towards OIC, but I'm also realistic in knowing that having collectives is important and does help a some sex workers which is good and positive! I would never advocate for a collective to not exist, merely for it to be transparent about what its actually about(your values or codes of conduct do not match actions, so that's where the call for transparency is, or even better, for there to be some more inclusivity and accountability for current harmful members).
But let's absolutely not pretend OIC is this wonderful, fair collective that is super accountable and great! when it's run in the same type of high school dynamic that Indycompanion and most other collectives are operated - if you aren't liked by the higher ups, you're left out or blocked out or worse! And just because you don't see it, hear about it or believe the gossip, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Of course you're not allowed to be critical to a group you're a part of and feel the need to defend it, trust me I was that loyal for YEARS to collectives including OIC before it was OIC, but at least make sure you actually have the full story before you come on and tell people their experiences are wrong or is their responsibility to fix.
I'm also curious how one is supposed to "mend bridges" if all you receive in a rejection email is "Several members feel unsafe around you, so therefore you will not be granted access to community"? I'm dying to know
I also have plenty of receipts showing OIC causing harm and drama to sex workers outside of the group, which some members of POWER can back up. All the OIC members who know of these issues are too afraid to speak up in case it shakes their spot inside the collective. That sounds nice and safe though
OIC also has a male provider currently working with them that is on several blacklists and is known for stealthing and other assaulting behaviour, who's holding him accountable?
Yes I personally have strong biases towards OIC, but I'm also realistic in knowing that having collectives is important and does help a some sex workers which is good and positive! I would never advocate for a collective to not exist, merely for it to be transparent about what its actually about(your values or codes of conduct do not match actions, so that's where the call for transparency is, or even better, for there to be some more inclusivity and accountability for current harmful members).
But let's absolutely not pretend OIC is this wonderful, fair collective that is super accountable and great! when it's run in the same type of high school dynamic that Indycompanion and most other collectives are operated - if you aren't liked by the higher ups, you're left out or blocked out or worse! And just because you don't see it, hear about it or believe the gossip, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Of course you're not allowed to be critical to a group you're a part of and feel the need to defend it, trust me I was that loyal for YEARS to collectives including OIC before it was OIC, but at least make sure you actually have the full story before you come on and tell people their experiences are wrong or is their responsibility to fix.
I've gotta say I'm with Amber and Kay here. Although I was not outright denied from the OIC I chose to end the application process because I was made to feel very unwelcome. I do not think safety resources such as a blacklist should be behind a paywall or require a membership.
My largest concern with OIC is something that Kay mentioned earlier about vulnerable providers. To join the OIC you must agree with their value statement which includes a clause about professionalism. When I started in this industry I was a broke undergrad and my scholarship was restructured, meaning I needed cash and I needed it fast. Professionalism was the last thing on my mind and admittedly I have acted in a volatile manner when I needed to make rent (who doesnt remember the disaster of a thread about me haha). When you are in a vulnerable position in this industry you still deserve access to safety resources even if professionalism isnt the first thing on your mind. What the hell does professionalism even mean in an industry where you sell sex?
I am on the board of POWER and wanted to clarify that as an org we do not have any formal alliances or relationships with other organizations. We have a board member who is in the OIC and other members who may have different positions. Our purpose as an org is not to gang up on anyone else's work. I think the OIC is probably great for those inside it, but it is clearly not for everyone.
One resource that may be useful to vulnerable providers is Willows drop-in which is a resource for outdoor workers in Vanier.
Kisses!
My largest concern with OIC is something that Kay mentioned earlier about vulnerable providers. To join the OIC you must agree with their value statement which includes a clause about professionalism. When I started in this industry I was a broke undergrad and my scholarship was restructured, meaning I needed cash and I needed it fast. Professionalism was the last thing on my mind and admittedly I have acted in a volatile manner when I needed to make rent (who doesnt remember the disaster of a thread about me haha). When you are in a vulnerable position in this industry you still deserve access to safety resources even if professionalism isnt the first thing on your mind. What the hell does professionalism even mean in an industry where you sell sex?
I am on the board of POWER and wanted to clarify that as an org we do not have any formal alliances or relationships with other organizations. We have a board member who is in the OIC and other members who may have different positions. Our purpose as an org is not to gang up on anyone else's work. I think the OIC is probably great for those inside it, but it is clearly not for everyone.
One resource that may be useful to vulnerable providers is Willows drop-in which is a resource for outdoor workers in Vanier.
Kisses!
I'm with you (and the three ladies). I don't think I've ever seen an OIC provider, however one thing I have noticed is threads critical of them seem to disappear. Hopefully that won't be the case here.
Stillroaming, I'm confused where you think discretion comes in when community members are calling for transparency.
This isn't high school, this is our lives. Exclusive groups like this who have blacklists restricted to members only and who encourage ostracizing sex workers who don't fit in are causing harm to others and thats not a thing we should have to take lightly.
In this industry, isolation means danger and community means safety, and any group that makes themselves out to be inclusive and supportive for local sex workers should make sure they're doing exactly that or at least make sure to be honest about what they're for.
This isn't high school, this is our lives. Exclusive groups like this who have blacklists restricted to members only and who encourage ostracizing sex workers who don't fit in are causing harm to others and thats not a thing we should have to take lightly.
In this industry, isolation means danger and community means safety, and any group that makes themselves out to be inclusive and supportive for local sex workers should make sure they're doing exactly that or at least make sure to be honest about what they're for.
Very true, I definitely feel I should make it clear I don't agree with the client's complaints at all towards OIC, especially when there are several providers with rates you terb guys claim is fair in the group.
I think it’s really strange that the benchmarks regarding OIC keep changing throughout this conversation. Criticism about our members starting drama, but then criticism about requiring a standard of professionalism. Disagreeing with the concept of our statement of values, but then upset about members having their own individual practices.
OIC was founded before Nat conceived, as has been mentioned, so to claim it was founded to support her while not working is completely false. We have full financial transparency within the collective, with regular updates on expenses, and account balances. This is not provided publicly for obvious reasons. Wanting financial transparency is fair, but we do provide that to our members, and can answer questions within reason to applicants.
We do hold our members accountable for publicly discriminating based on race, and have never based our membership decisions on race. When this policy is violated, members are asked to either change their behaviour or exit the collective. That’s all there is to it.
We have to have standards and values. If you don’t agree with them, you don’t need to join, and that’s the beauty of a collective. We have to have something that we all agree on to tether us to something, and allow us to operate with confidence and transparency. Our values ensure that clients will access services that are up to a certain standard, which ensures our credibility. Absolutely it would be great to be able to help every single sex worker who needs it, but ultimately it wouldn’t make sense for us to allow members who don’t meet a certain standard of ethics and conduct. But we all are our own individuals, so there must be room for us to conduct ourselves as such, hence some members engaging in “drama” on TERB. Many of us won’t engage, yet we are being painted with wide strokes due to the actions of some, who couldn’t possibly represent us all.
We are a non-hierarchal organisation, there is no “president”. There are employees and volunteers who are responsible for certain duties, and they are subject to the needs and desires of the membership. There are louder voices, people who may engage more and seem to have more influence, but we all have the same weight in actual decision-making. To say some votes are weighted more than others is false.
If anybody has complaints about the behaviour of certain members of OIC, I would really recommend getting in contact to let us know. We are not in member’s emails or phones supervising their interactions, we don’t know what happens in sessions beyond what we are told, so chances are if there’s somebody acting in an unethical or problematic manner: we don’t know. Otherwise it would have been addressed with them. And we can’t know unless we’re told. But instead of coming to us and saying “I had a bad experience with this provider, and don’t feel they adhere to your standards of conduct,” people are out here saying that the actions of one are representative of us all. But then also jumping on board to criticize how we don’t grant membership and access to client information to people we don’t know we can trust to represent us and our values. That just seems really strange to me. One of the goals of OIC is to create and uphold standards in an industry that is unregulated, so that clients and providers alike can know what to expect, and feel secure in screening, and engaging. We’re here having a conversation about the standards in our market, so clearly you all have opinions. Voice them. Let us know what needs to change. We will discuss and determine if that is in the best interest of our members, the industry, and our clients. We will discuss violations of our policies, or perceived issues with professionalism, and address them or create policy around them. It’s as simple as that.
Not to say that the issues being brought up aren’t valid; I think they just illustrate that OIC may be right for some clients and providers, but may not be a good fit for others. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I do find it odd how many will nod along but then voice opposing standards, and somehow hold us to both. We can’t and won’t meet all standards, and I don’t think that’s an inherently bad thing.
That’s clearly evidenced by the wide variance in opinions and standards in this thread alone. People who want “top-quality” providers who don’t screen or charge too much... but when critised for that then say that the market will balance itself with new girls who come in to fill that need, yet are here talking about how that exact thing hasn’t happened. People who don’t want to screen due to a need for discretion, but don’t seem to have an issue with a provider not screening, and potentially opening themselves up to dangerous clients who might hang around outside their incall, harassing, outing, or otherwise compromising your safety and discretion. But then also not supporting OIC, which is made up of verified and screened providers who are required to treat your screening info with discretion, and then simultaneously jumping on bord with criticism about us not granting membership to people whom we can’t properly vet, or who don’t agree to a standard of professionalism.
Like, we’re really damned if we do, damned if we don’t in this circle. And here’s everyone wondering why the market doesn’t meet their unique, specific, personal preferences. ?
OIC was founded before Nat conceived, as has been mentioned, so to claim it was founded to support her while not working is completely false. We have full financial transparency within the collective, with regular updates on expenses, and account balances. This is not provided publicly for obvious reasons. Wanting financial transparency is fair, but we do provide that to our members, and can answer questions within reason to applicants.
We do hold our members accountable for publicly discriminating based on race, and have never based our membership decisions on race. When this policy is violated, members are asked to either change their behaviour or exit the collective. That’s all there is to it.
We have to have standards and values. If you don’t agree with them, you don’t need to join, and that’s the beauty of a collective. We have to have something that we all agree on to tether us to something, and allow us to operate with confidence and transparency. Our values ensure that clients will access services that are up to a certain standard, which ensures our credibility. Absolutely it would be great to be able to help every single sex worker who needs it, but ultimately it wouldn’t make sense for us to allow members who don’t meet a certain standard of ethics and conduct. But we all are our own individuals, so there must be room for us to conduct ourselves as such, hence some members engaging in “drama” on TERB. Many of us won’t engage, yet we are being painted with wide strokes due to the actions of some, who couldn’t possibly represent us all.
We are a non-hierarchal organisation, there is no “president”. There are employees and volunteers who are responsible for certain duties, and they are subject to the needs and desires of the membership. There are louder voices, people who may engage more and seem to have more influence, but we all have the same weight in actual decision-making. To say some votes are weighted more than others is false.
If anybody has complaints about the behaviour of certain members of OIC, I would really recommend getting in contact to let us know. We are not in member’s emails or phones supervising their interactions, we don’t know what happens in sessions beyond what we are told, so chances are if there’s somebody acting in an unethical or problematic manner: we don’t know. Otherwise it would have been addressed with them. And we can’t know unless we’re told. But instead of coming to us and saying “I had a bad experience with this provider, and don’t feel they adhere to your standards of conduct,” people are out here saying that the actions of one are representative of us all. But then also jumping on board to criticize how we don’t grant membership and access to client information to people we don’t know we can trust to represent us and our values. That just seems really strange to me. One of the goals of OIC is to create and uphold standards in an industry that is unregulated, so that clients and providers alike can know what to expect, and feel secure in screening, and engaging. We’re here having a conversation about the standards in our market, so clearly you all have opinions. Voice them. Let us know what needs to change. We will discuss and determine if that is in the best interest of our members, the industry, and our clients. We will discuss violations of our policies, or perceived issues with professionalism, and address them or create policy around them. It’s as simple as that.
Not to say that the issues being brought up aren’t valid; I think they just illustrate that OIC may be right for some clients and providers, but may not be a good fit for others. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I do find it odd how many will nod along but then voice opposing standards, and somehow hold us to both. We can’t and won’t meet all standards, and I don’t think that’s an inherently bad thing.
That’s clearly evidenced by the wide variance in opinions and standards in this thread alone. People who want “top-quality” providers who don’t screen or charge too much... but when critised for that then say that the market will balance itself with new girls who come in to fill that need, yet are here talking about how that exact thing hasn’t happened. People who don’t want to screen due to a need for discretion, but don’t seem to have an issue with a provider not screening, and potentially opening themselves up to dangerous clients who might hang around outside their incall, harassing, outing, or otherwise compromising your safety and discretion. But then also not supporting OIC, which is made up of verified and screened providers who are required to treat your screening info with discretion, and then simultaneously jumping on bord with criticism about us not granting membership to people whom we can’t properly vet, or who don’t agree to a standard of professionalism.
Like, we’re really damned if we do, damned if we don’t in this circle. And here’s everyone wondering why the market doesn’t meet their unique, specific, personal preferences. ?
It really is not that difficult to be a sex worker collective that's meant to be for the community - by the community. If you think having an exclusive group where a few members of a committee, all who have their own personal biases yet make the final decisions regardless, who get to say who's allowed in and who isn't is the best way to help sex workers in the community, then I don't know how to help you.
Literally just open conversations, clear transparency and no exclusivity are the simplest things a group can do to be supportive and helpful to the sex worker community. If you're the ONLY collective of its kind in the city, there's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't want to work with everyone to build a strong community. Even if you don't personally get along with someone, does not mean they don't still deserve the same community and resources that others do.
But yeah I get it, you guys don't want to have everyone be included, you'd rather there be some kind of standards, right? Then at the very least try to work with those you aren't including so they can still have some kind of access to safety and community, even if it isn't in your particular group.
Personally, I would love to have an open meeting between members of OIC and other sex workers outside the collective, where the community as a whole can come together to discuss things
Literally just open conversations, clear transparency and no exclusivity are the simplest things a group can do to be supportive and helpful to the sex worker community. If you're the ONLY collective of its kind in the city, there's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't want to work with everyone to build a strong community. Even if you don't personally get along with someone, does not mean they don't still deserve the same community and resources that others do.
But yeah I get it, you guys don't want to have everyone be included, you'd rather there be some kind of standards, right? Then at the very least try to work with those you aren't including so they can still have some kind of access to safety and community, even if it isn't in your particular group.
Personally, I would love to have an open meeting between members of OIC and other sex workers outside the collective, where the community as a whole can come together to discuss things
That’s basically what POWER is trying to do, no?
OIC can’t be everything to everyone. It sucks that we’re the only collective in the city, but that doesn’t mean we have to accommodate everyone. I think it’s interesting that you’re asking for us to open up our blacklist for the safety of others (despite there already having been an incident in Ottawa where a provider tried to start and open blacklist, and info from it was very quickly leaked to clients), but would rather bash us for having a predatory member instead of letting us know, for our safety.
Not trying to get personal here. I just think there are a lot of personal feelings and relationships that are influencing how some are judging us, and those are valid, but not based entirely in logic. We can’t provide resources to everybody, at the same time as providing the advertising and benefits that we do. I wish we could! I wish every sex worker could have access to this type of support. But there are other orgs, and can be other collectives or orgs that can form to serve those purposes. OIC has its limitations. Again, we’re being asked by some to police our member’s “drama” on TERB, and create an account to put out public statements that somehow have to be representative of all of us, but then also being asked to be open in some manner to everyone. Neither of those things is within our scope at this point, and there are a lot of barriers or concerns in doing either. We can only take things as they come, and at this point there’s such a diversity of opinions and experience in the membership that we’re still navigating how to disperse resources WITHIN oic, let alone to people who aren’t even members. We’re not there and may never get there. There need to be other options than just OIC
The only thing I've noticed about OIC until now is the group think/scripted answers.
That and those adverts for events. I sat there pondering which sad sap punter pays to go to an event to just to hang out socially with a group of SPs.
"I strongly also feel that the bad dates list within the OIC list should be made public to all providers regardless of their membership status. If the "collective" is truly about the betterment of SW this would never been a question."
This really surprised me. The narrative OIC publically espouses seems contrary to sharing something like this for the safety of the community they say they care about.
The comments from other SPs about some of their practices now doesn't surprise me at all. I'm grateful for you shedding light on it.
All I have to say is that the comments from Kay Kelly, Amber and Dahlia (I've had my differences with her) have been thoughtful, intelligent and respectful.
All I've seen from OIC responses in this thread is either disdain or a badly structured stream of consciousness that didn't really address anything (seriously Fiora, use paragraphs).
That and those adverts for events. I sat there pondering which sad sap punter pays to go to an event to just to hang out socially with a group of SPs.
"I strongly also feel that the bad dates list within the OIC list should be made public to all providers regardless of their membership status. If the "collective" is truly about the betterment of SW this would never been a question."
This really surprised me. The narrative OIC publically espouses seems contrary to sharing something like this for the safety of the community they say they care about.
The comments from other SPs about some of their practices now doesn't surprise me at all. I'm grateful for you shedding light on it.
All I have to say is that the comments from Kay Kelly, Amber and Dahlia (I've had my differences with her) have been thoughtful, intelligent and respectful.
All I've seen from OIC responses in this thread is either disdain or a badly structured stream of consciousness that didn't really address anything (seriously Fiora, use paragraphs).
The fact that a black list is being monetized/behind a paywall within the OIC is absolutely disgusting to me. SW deserve to be able to operate with piece of mind, and have a right to know about who poses a risk to safety if that information is available. OIC should be providing this to fellow SWs whether they're in the OIC or not. There's really no justifiable alternative position on this imo.
��**
I think maybe some statements from others are being confused with mine.
When a public blacklist was started based in criticism for our practice, it very quickly fell apart because a SW shared with a client that he was on the blacklist, and publicly defended him. If SWs are sharing who’s on blacklists, it puts other SWs at risk of retaliation from unsafe clients. I also believe that blacklists should be available to all sex workers, but there are very legitimate concerns in this case that we can’t just ignore. We’ve had a large discussion about sharing our BL to contribute to the POWER blacklist, but there were various concerns that just lead us to agree that anybody who wanted their listings shared could do so themselves, and we couldn’t provide that BL info because everybody has contributed only expecting it to be shared within OIC. There are other blacklists that people clearly have access to, and ideally there are people listing in multiple, as has often been the case.
And if we really want to talk about Brass and CMJ... I’ve heard a number of stories about them knowingly letting unsafe clients back and not informing workers about them. ��** And we’ve all heard the same kinds of things about agencies.
OIC isn’t an agency. We don’t handle booking, screening, or anything of that sort for our members. We are all independent providers who can make a decision to contribute to a group if it benefits us. And as somebody who has almost always contributed the minimum $ because I support a disabled family member and contribute a lot of money and time to volunteer endeavours: I have never been questioned or judged for that, despite talking about FMTYs to New York and Dubai etc. It has never been an issue. And it never is an issue if members get in contact and say they can’t afford to pay at all. So to say the BL and community is behind a paywall is unfair, and a misunderstanding. What OIC aims to be is a place of safety and trust for both clients and providers, and that’s a big balancing act that we’re figuring out entirely from scratch. We’re doing what we can, and are as transparent as possible.
Kay, you were not rejected. You yourself stated that you decided not to continue the process. We have a number of members without websites, but from my understanding you said you were considering making one, and it was asked if that had happened, as we do look at all websites and social media as part of our screening practice. You chose not to continue the process.
Similarly, we’ve had members who have had some very serious conflicts with new applicants, and those applicants have made the effort to repair and restore trust and relationships. We don’t reject people based on current members just not liking them. We do everything in our power to smooth those bumps so as many people as possible can access this community, despite major differences. If anybody has been outright rejected, I’d hope you could all trust there’s a very good reason.
But as I said, the benchmark seems to keep changing in this conversation. Clients who have problems with OIC for whatever reason will glom on to whatever new reasons they can, and it seems maybe some workers will too. That’s okay, and that’s clearly not going to change regardless of what I say. It is very weird to say we’re “Scripted” though lmao. Literally nobody has been asked to say anything, and none of us are saying the same things beyond just what is and isn’t true about OIC. That can be painted to look a lot of ways when you’re trying to prove another point. Personally, I joined OIC when I felt deeply isolated as a SW, and I didn’t even actively seek out membership because I thought I wouldn’t fit in. I was encouraged to join by somebody I didn’t even know at the time, a founding member who to this day continues to make efforts to bring together SWs of varied experiences. OIC changed so much for me in those first few months, and I’m understandably protective of that. I would hope I could recognize OIC’s shortcomings as well, but certainly when I see people making false and outlandish claims, and unrealistic demands, I’m going to speak up because this is a community that has cared for and uplifted me. If that’s scripted and disingenuous in some way... idk what to tell y’all lol. Again, some will never change their opinion, and will hold us to constantly shifting standards. I just hope anybody reading all this and wondering what the truth is can now have some insight in to the reality, as opposed to opinions from outside.
I think maybe some statements from others are being confused with mine.When a public blacklist was started based in criticism for our practice, it very quickly fell apart because a SW shared with a client that he was on the blacklist, and publicly defended him. If SWs are sharing who’s on blacklists, it puts other SWs at risk of retaliation from unsafe clients. I also believe that blacklists should be available to all sex workers, but there are very legitimate concerns in this case that we can’t just ignore. We’ve had a large discussion about sharing our BL to contribute to the POWER blacklist, but there were various concerns that just lead us to agree that anybody who wanted their listings shared could do so themselves, and we couldn’t provide that BL info because everybody has contributed only expecting it to be shared within OIC. There are other blacklists that people clearly have access to, and ideally there are people listing in multiple, as has often been the case.
And if we really want to talk about Brass and CMJ... I’ve heard a number of stories about them knowingly letting unsafe clients back and not informing workers about them. ��**
And we’ve all heard the same kinds of things about agencies.OIC isn’t an agency. We don’t handle booking, screening, or anything of that sort for our members. We are all independent providers who can make a decision to contribute to a group if it benefits us. And as somebody who has almost always contributed the minimum $ because I support a disabled family member and contribute a lot of money and time to volunteer endeavours: I have never been questioned or judged for that, despite talking about FMTYs to New York and Dubai etc. It has never been an issue. And it never is an issue if members get in contact and say they can’t afford to pay at all. So to say the BL and community is behind a paywall is unfair, and a misunderstanding. What OIC aims to be is a place of safety and trust for both clients and providers, and that’s a big balancing act that we’re figuring out entirely from scratch. We’re doing what we can, and are as transparent as possible.
Kay, you were not rejected. You yourself stated that you decided not to continue the process. We have a number of members without websites, but from my understanding you said you were considering making one, and it was asked if that had happened, as we do look at all websites and social media as part of our screening practice. You chose not to continue the process.
Similarly, we’ve had members who have had some very serious conflicts with new applicants, and those applicants have made the effort to repair and restore trust and relationships. We don’t reject people based on current members just not liking them. We do everything in our power to smooth those bumps so as many people as possible can access this community, despite major differences. If anybody has been outright rejected, I’d hope you could all trust there’s a very good reason.
But as I said, the benchmark seems to keep changing in this conversation. Clients who have problems with OIC for whatever reason will glom on to whatever new reasons they can, and it seems maybe some workers will too. That’s okay, and that’s clearly not going to change regardless of what I say. It is very weird to say we’re “Scripted” though lmao. Literally nobody has been asked to say anything, and none of us are saying the same things beyond just what is and isn’t true about OIC. That can be painted to look a lot of ways when you’re trying to prove another point. Personally, I joined OIC when I felt deeply isolated as a SW, and I didn’t even actively seek out membership because I thought I wouldn’t fit in. I was encouraged to join by somebody I didn’t even know at the time, a founding member who to this day continues to make efforts to bring together SWs of varied experiences. OIC changed so much for me in those first few months, and I’m understandably protective of that. I would hope I could recognize OIC’s shortcomings as well, but certainly when I see people making false and outlandish claims, and unrealistic demands, I’m going to speak up because this is a community that has cared for and uplifted me. If that’s scripted and disingenuous in some way... idk what to tell y’all lol. Again, some will never change their opinion, and will hold us to constantly shifting standards. I just hope anybody reading all this and wondering what the truth is can now have some insight in to the reality, as opposed to opinions from outside.
Last edited:
Well said.
This is an eye opening thread. While the OP might not have intended it to turn out the way it has, the thread is letting us know what has been happening to the Ottawa scene. Props to all the SW providing their opinions.
As for OIC, it's value to me starts and stops with knowing the providers in it are at least real, which can let me skip the verification step if ever a provider holds herself out to me as an OIC member because that'd be easy enough to check. But that's it. Not more. Not less. Even then, knowing she's real, I'd still want to check beforehand to see if she's the type of provider I'd want to pay for with my time and money.
The amount of sex workers that are comfortable with their fellow providers being in harm's way so they don't have to change things up or work with members outside their group is alarming.
