Gia Wren Marlowe

Further to Cat's point, I think they would also list any agency worker as someone they believe to be "controlled", so keep that in mind. Not everyone with an agent or a manager is coerced.

I also love how the young people that legitimately are rescued through completely different operations are always lumped in with these pointless interviews. I'm sure it is done deliberately to try to make it look like these initiatives are more effective than they are. A short correction a few days later is better than nothing, but most people reading the story the first day will never see that. The police and/or media is clearly using a bit of propaganda there. It's frustrating.

I just want to point out quickly that some people are allergic to coconut oil. I don't believe there is a known allergy when it comes to eating it, but contact dermatitis is something that a rare few will experience.

If you are thinking about using it, try it out as a lotion for a few days and see how your skin reacts. My skin does NOT handle it well, and because of that I would never want to use it as a lube. I actually have to read beauty product ingredients carefully to make sure there is no coconut oil in anything I put on my skin. So while it is amazing for some people, just give it a trial run before you commit to buying a lot.

@GiaWren :)

Twitter is huge for sex worker activism. It's one of the few places where we can get our voices heard by a larger public. There is also a lot of propaganda being tweeted constantly by abolitionists and without escorts online to counter them I worry about how their misinformation will spread. Yes, we can make non-escort accounts to fight them, but I don't think that would be as effective as hearing from self-proclaimed escorts themselves. If we have to hide our profession to use twitter it isn't as helpful.

There is currently a petition going around to impose this same filter in Canada. I imagine it will also impact escort sites. If it goes through it looks like clients who want to view our sites will have to contact their internet service provider to opt in to seeing porn and adult-related websites. They can just say they want to look at porn, now and then, but it will make an awkward and likely guilt-ridden conversation with a significant other, indeed.

I see a lot of other problems with this proposal, but first and foremost I do wonder how it will impact business, and client's lives.

Actually, as much as everyone is saying "Duh", without looking at how people view men, I don't think this study has proven anything. Do people look at men's faces or bodies more? Why assume it is only women who are looked at this way? They've done other studies to show that men are assessed on their height and the width of their shoulders, so perhaps a similar study with men would show that we're not really looking at their faces, either.

Nathalie Lefebvre and I offer duos. We do nuru duos, as well.

I am not resorting to emotional appeals nor inflammatory statements to win an argument. How very, very dismissive and condescending of you to say so. If you are not able to understand my points, that is fine. But do NOT assign me motivations. I explained things exactly as I see them, and obviously I am not the only one who sees things that way. I tried to keep the points at which we disagree civil, but you obviously have no interest in that. I have put myself out there where I would be better off staying silent to protect my business interests, because I thought it was worthwhile to have all points of view on the table. If your only response to my posts is to say that I am just wrong, and that I am making light of consent, then I will not bother trying to have a reasoned debate with you in future. There are more positive ways I can spend my time.

I don't believe I misinterpreted anything. There was a discussion about legal contracts and going before judges. So I did not draw my argument from nothing. I agree that no one has suggested that anyone be forced to perform sexual acts -- no one on here, anyway -- but if you set up financial consequences for failing to perform them then there is a sense of potential punishment hanging over the head of the provider. I don't see any way around that. Especially with things that are so difficult to quantify, such as the depth of a deep french kiss. Rephrasing things to say, basically, that she isn't losing money, he's just gaining money back, doesn't change the fact that the provider has lost income because a client feels he didn't receive what he thought was agreed upon. So I think my word choices have been correct. There can be a difference between what is intended and what is. To say that no one intends to coerce providers (I'm not trying to throw the word at anyone, but it's the one of the words under discussion) is not the same as saying that the provider doesn't reasonably think that she will be punished for not giving the client what he wants -- even when she finds it is not feasible once they meet (ymmv due to hygiene, etc). I don't believe the word contract, especially as is being discussed by some -- a legal contract -- should apply to a sexual encounter. I do not agree to specific acts in advance, so in my case it's moot, but I do think that even where services are discussed it should be understood and accepted that the services may vary.

I used the term "rapey-vibe" because that is exactly how it feels to me. I can't change that that is how it feels to me. I don't like to ever hear of anyone being under contract to perform certain acts, or to make restitution if they don't. I actually don't think people should promise specific things in the first place, though. Because I do think one should deliver on one's promises and I think that where we might not be able to, we shouldn't promise. But the thing is, that's not that easy for a lot of providers, because many clients HATE it when you seem to be coy about what you offer. There do seem to be providers who would be willing to alter the fee structure a bit if something comes up, and, again, I think that is the right thing to do. I am uncomfortable with it being a sort of codified, by contract, thing, though, because I think there is too much room for potential abuse. I think it creates a more frightening and negative environment for providers, without offering much to clients as these things are hard to prove, anyway. My whole point is that it's unworkable. I think it would be nice to be able to call up any provider and get what is promised without worrying about being ripped off. I just can't see a workable solution. If it's a matter of "What is right?" Then a legitimately aggrieved client should get some form of recompense. I'm against trying to enforce what is technically right for the reasons I've stated. Too tough to prove, too much room for misuse.

I can't take back the terms I've used because as some men have pointed out, there are two sides to everything. It may suck to hear that this is how it sounds to some of us when people talk about contracts, but if you want real opinions, then it's good to be aware that this IS how it sounds to some people. Some clients feel that things are too much in favour of SPs all the time. We may or may not agree, but saying the opinions sound yucky doesn't do any good. I'm not sure any of us will change anyone's mind on this matter, and I'm not out to offend anyone or make any feel that they are being treated to a condescending lecture. It's a bit draining for me to try to convey something controversial and likely to be unpopular with many on a forum where anything I say may effect my business. But since the involvement of the ladies side of things is one of the advantages of this board, I thought I would add my viewpoint. In any case, I am not looking for a fight over this, and I don't want to repeat my points ad nauseam, so if anyone has further issues with my posts, I may just agree to disagree.

I'm not sure how reliable the results are relating the the fields the men work in. The men surveyed were all on ashleymaddison, correct? So most of those fields seem to be male-dominated. It may be that men in other fields are more likely to be cheating with co-workers than going online to find an affair. I suspect men in other occupations actually cheat at around the same rate.