Not one of these simplistic political hack jobs. I've known, dated, and gone thorough life with some of the most intelligent, most resourceful, all around strong far out women that I met through the hobby... and I never would have known any women like this if I hadn't decided to get into it. My life would have been a lot narrower, less fulfilled (and I mean fulfilled in the broadest sense), and just plain less of a life minus the hobby.

Yes, I've met a percentage of crazies and drug cases.... my estimate is the number that suffered from childhood abuse is significantly less than the figures the "experts" are irresponsibly stating as settled fact.

We'd be all around enlightened if we'd drop the sitgmas and make emotional counseling available to anyone related to the hobby who thinks they need counseling.

Maybe 5-10% of the men and women who get into this have issues that the hobby isn't going to fix. Then the media latches on to this 5-10% and insists that this IS the hobby. Nope, what that is, is the most visibly weird part of the hobby, which is like saying all of corporate america is a gang of ruthless sociopaths or every politician is a two faced scumbag or every feminist is a man hating ballchopper.

So why is it if you make a ludicrous generalization about any one of these other positions you would be hooted down as a knuckleheaded ignoramus ? Then if you tell your audience they shouldn't make broad brush generaliazations about the sex business they look at you like a disgusting freak ?

Read them both and thought they raised some salient issues regarding the hobby. The former provider astutely suggested that many clients are far from pathological sex addicts whose libidos and arrogance force them to control and dominate women. In essence, she acknowledged that many of us are intelligent individuals, who for various reasons, seek companionship that is certainly sexual in nature, but that also includes conversation and personal interaction. By suggesting that we make intelligent choices, unlike Mr. Spitzer, she underscored a critical aspect of the hobby that does not fit the public stereotype concerning prostitution.

The other piece, which argued that the hobby is always abuse against women, clearly doesn't square with my perceptions or experiences. I found it problematic specifically because I have known many women in this profession who have not been abused, who do not believe that they "rent out an organ for ten minutes," who are as interested in sex and companionship as their clients are, and who understand that they can profit in this business without needing to feel ashamed or vilified. Although I understood the nature of that OP-ED, as it can be applied to abused women who have no place to turn and feel forced into the profession, I suspect that stands apart from the nature of the "hobby," as we understand that term on this board.

Lastly, the two op-eds collectively made me contemplate the strange bifurcation in this country regarding the way people use their bodies. We have no moral strictures against a professional athlete using a powerful body to play a sport (unless steroids are involved), while at the same time, reaping huge profits via a contract. Yet, when providers use their bodies and make a profit, many Americans cringe. In the larger scheme of things, what's the difference? Is it simply this country's puritanical roots that mark the distinction?

It sounds like the 80s feminist sex wars all over again.

Get Catherine Mackinnon and Camille Paglia to throw punches and punchlines at each other.

This is an old (tired) argument that has no resolution or negotiation.

-- Modified on 3/12/2008 2:35:18 PM