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. ?