But not sure what the phrase "military 'mirror'" means.  Glad to hear MrsOSP isn't your age.  I am jealous.  OTOH, my wife is 11 years younger than me but is still too damn old.  And, yes, I know, I am a pig.

Just to take her(?) first point, that being the assumption that the hobby is for ugly people who can't get laid.

That is BS, so one is arguing that ugly (or less than star quality) people can't get laid.  They do all the time.  Where the hell do you think all the people in the world are coming from anyways?

The hobby is to avoid the BS that comes with civie relationships.

Because it's just that; HER opinion. You'd be surprised how much of her spew makes connections with research conducted by sociologists and psyco-bablists alike though.

I always hated dating. Girls usually ended up asking me out for something incredible arbitrary just to break the ice. Nor am I interested in women my own age. Good grief dude you must be my military "mirror".

over 3 and half years ago. Perhaps if it were a valid research study.

from an extremely cynical point of view.

Not exactly a fair and balanced analysis of the hobby at all.

for that steaming pile of crap!  lol!  Wow, does she have her head up her ass.  Specifically, just because the ugly guys she knows have a lot of sex misses the point.  I guarantee you they are having sex with ugly women!  As for me, I'm a better-than-average-looking guy (modest, too!) but I have no interest in having sex with women my age (too many sags and wrinkles), and no desire to pick  up young women  with "daddy issues."  I also hate the dating scene.  So it's providers for me.  I don't think I'm alone.
And despite some of the earlier threads about providers hating men and hating their jobs, my experience belies that as well.  The women I've seen (in sessions and Meet & Greets) seem to enjoy what they do.  They can't all be fooling.  Comparing this to any form of rape is ridiculous.
The rest of the article is shit, too, and plays into all the stereotypes.  But I'm too lazy to go on.

I find all of her points to be well-grounded in logic, but her conclusion isn't necessarily supported by those points--any more than my employment makes me a victim of "slavery lite."  The devil is in the details, and very little is inherently good or bad, but its execution may make it so.

I found her logic to be a bit selective, with a pessimistic, cynical slant to it. I also found her conclusion wasn't very well supported by some of those points.

All in all, it was a decent attempt but any good trial lawyer would be able to punch holes in her position defense.

"I believe that when someone pays a sex worker to sexually service a total stranger regardless of whether or not she hates his guts, this person is paying her to ignore consent and just do whatever he says. This person is paying her to do things she would not normally do under threat of dire financial trouble which may result in homelessness or inability to feed oneself, which in turn could very easily lead to death, or at least a life not much more desirable than death.

It's very difficult to rationalize this as anything other than a variety of rape."

Not only are clients portrayed as goblins, ignoring the many reasons and types of individuals who play in this realm, and who all seeming would ask providers to do things that they would not choose to do; the providers are portrayed as desperate individuals who have no other financial means or recourse and who have no choice but to do as any client may say.  Yes, it is true in some cases, and it is a very ugly part of the industry.  No choice?  Why not actually work a 9-5?  Start a dog walking business?  Turn to welfare? Even drug dealing?  Unless someone is truly under the psychological and physical control of another (as in an abusive pimp situation, for example) there is choice.

Clients are not absolved of needing consent, and I will not just "do whatever he says."  (Another assumption there - that all clients are men.)  Don't mistake this as my saying that there are not rapists who pose as "clients", nor that all providers are working from empowered choice.  Yet, I do not do things under threat of dire financial trouble which may result in homelessness or inability to feed oneself, no more than any other person who goes to work every day.  So why is this so horribly different that the author compares an exchange in this industry to rape?  The sticking point is sex.  The author, if it is indeed a provider, is someone who is so morally torn over her (?) own decision to provide that there is no personal accountability for her own choice to continue in the industry, the harm is being done in her mind by her clients, and her victim reality is projected onto the entire industry.  The blog was pure clap trap.

What can be done to make this a healthier and safer business for those who are here?  As a simple bumper sticker I enjoyed said, "Outlaw poverty, not prostitution."  And for those who want to leave?  Support training and shelter programs, support outreach projects, promote financial support of such causes with your legislators.  It does not help to disempower providers by viewing and treating them as poor wretches who need to be saved from their evil clients.

... since logically it does make sense.  I can relate.  Personally I don't like programming, but I will continue to program so I don't get homeless and starve.

I thought my eyes were going to explode when I saw you write 'fuck'! lol!

-- Modified on 7/15/2011 7:08:33 PM