Addiction, or Therapy? Exploitation, or a Benevolent Service?

[Orpheo12 70]

My experience of compensating companions for their time has had me wrestling with ethical dilemmas. I'd like to share my thoughts and invite constructive comments.

Why is Sex Work illegal?

Our culture heightens sexual cravings by sexualizing people and products. We are conditioned to crave intimacy as an expression of our wholeness as human beings, and when under other stresses, a lack of healthy opportunities for intimacy can become an unmet need causing suffering and heightening the risk of mental illness and self-harming. So an argument can be made that Companions who provide such services are relieving suffering, and providing a kind of therapy. This has been my experience. I have appreciated the humanity and respect shared in my interactions as a client.

But I also recognize that scratching the itch often makes it worse. Once a lonely heart take the huge risk of seeing a companion, a positive experience intensifies the craving for more, more, more. So there is an obvious parallel to other forms of addiction. Some former taboos, like the use of marijuana, have been legalized and its use is now largely benevolent. By removing the trade from the hands of illegal suppliers the acceptance of such use has also seen larger numbers of people having a net benefit; just as I will enjoy a glass of Zinfandel after this post.

So if the provision of companionship can be genuinely therapeutic (relieving suffering), why does it continue to be regarded as illegal?

There are many good reasons to regard sex work as an evil. Human trafficking is an evil. Getting vulnerable people hooked on hard drugs so they can be pimped out to feed their addition is an evil. Huge amounts of money are passing into the hand of criminals who thrive on hurting people by whatever means enhances their profit. So there are aspects of the industry that are and should be prosecuted as criminal.

Under our present laws, selling sexual services is legal, but buying such services is illegal. For Sex Workers the legalization of providing services must be a great benefit, adding to the dignity and lessening the risk of choosing this profession. It is reasonable to criminalize those who seek their services?

I would argue that because much of sex work still does involve horrific exploitation, the answer is not a simple "no." But the harms are greater because the trade is still illegal for those seeking it. Were it legal, and protected as a human right (both providing and seeking), the opportunities for criminal exploitation would lessen and the mortal outrage against such activities would become harder to sustain rationally.

IMO, making sex work legal and regulated would be a positive step in the ethical evolution of our culture. Sex itself would become recognized as a healthy expression of human interactions rather than a dirty taboo, at least when paying for it.

In my experience, the companions I have met have been lovely persons with their own agency, enjoying dignity and treating me with respect in my vulnerability. Thank you.

[Evie Rosewood 518]

This gunna be long, so buckle up, lol. (Summarization is not my strong suit :D)

Personally, it's my opinion that sex work, on its own, is morally neutral. 

We know that sex is a normal and natural human behaviour. Humans are wired for connection and are naturally drawn towards physical contact with others. The reasons to purchase sexual services varies from patron to patron. Things like; stress relief, kink exploration, human contact, engaging conversation, and "mental vacation" are just some of the reasons I've heard. If there are people who are willing to provide a supply for the demand, that's not inherently exploitative just on its own. (From a worker's standpoint, I felt far more exploited while employed by a cafe for just above minimum wage than I do in sex work where I set my own rates and hours.)

I would argue that while sex and human contact can have a therapeutic benefit, it is a far cry from an actual form of therapy. The key difference here being that therapy has a mindfully structured and goal-oriented treatment protocol that aligns with specific methodologies. I would encourage people to do away with the idea that sex workers are therapists. (Even if a sex worker is certified in the field, they may be a therapist, but they not your therapist.) To quote a fellow sex worker on this: We are twice as expensive and half as qualified. 

As far as sex addiction goes, there's a mounting body of evidence that suggests it doesn't actually exist. At least, not in the way people think. This is because "sex addiction" fails to activate the same parts of the brain that typical addictions do. It does not appear in the DSM-5 as a diagnosable mental health condition. An interesting fact is that, on average, self proclaimed "sex addicts" do not engage in sexual activities (intercourse/masturbation) more than the general population. The difference here is the internalized shame that "sex addicts" themselves have attached to the specific activity. That shame is often rooted in religious ideology that has been taught to them about sex throughout the duration of their lives. Alternatively, shame can come just from the moral code of your environmental setting as well. One of the growing pains of the present time is that our society still has a lot of contradictory views around sex and around the morality of how we engage with sex. These views are mostly left over from a more puritanical time. It really wasn't that long ago that even divorce was a whispered subject and children born out of wedlock were widely considered as products of sin. 

That's not to say that sexual activity can't become problematic. There are many people that engage in sex and masturbation to the point that it does interfere with their day to day life. This is more effectively treated as a symptom of a larger issue, rather than the primary issue itself. It can also be viewed as a compulsive behaviour. The importance of distinguishing between this and a true addiction is that the treatment procedures for addiction vs. lack of impulse control look very different. 

As far as trafficking goes, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't agree that it's a tragic evil. The fallacy with your thinking here though is that labour trafficking exists across nearly every sector. I would not say that there are good reasons to see farming, fishing, or hospitality as "evil" industries because of the trafficking that is rampant within them. Labour rights and legal policies that offer protections based in human rights are essential in actually combatting all forms of trafficking.

I won't get into the "legal and regulated", because I've already written a novel here, but there is a reason sex workers advocate for a decriminalized legal framework. Legalization models sound great on paper but are often counterintuitive and only cause further harm. 

 

[Taigh815 264]

Two very thoughtful posts. Well considered and written. Just to throw something in, I was watching a fascinating video regarding serotonin and dopamine. (Happy to provide the link if anyone is interested). Interestingly, they interfere with each other, but the big take away is that you can easily and quickly become acclimated to dopamine. It actually becomes a clinical addiction. You need more and more to achieve the same "high". So while you may not be sex addicted, you can become so to the neurochemical effects that sex produces.

As for Berlin's penultimate paragraph, that is truly inspired. Pretty much every trade and many products can be "evil" if used or sold by the ill-intentioned. Just think of the slave labour that is used to produce everyday objects. As Orpheo says and Berlin agrees, just because something can be evil is no reason to ban it outright. People often clamour for "clamping down" or making up new laws, when our basic legal code already allows for effective prosecution, if only the officials responsible would do their job.

[Evie Rosewood 518]

40 minutes ago, Taigh815 said:

. So while you may not be sex addicted, you can become so to the neurochemical effects that sex produces.

That's actually a common misconception! You can't be addicted to dopamine, or any neurotransmitter for that matter. You can develop a compulsive pattern of behaviour that triggers its release, but that is not a true addiction. Compulsion is an intense urge, whereas addiction is physical dependency. So while a compulsive behaviour can feel like an addiction, it's not. The "tolerance" you reference is largely attributed to dissociation in the individual while engaging in the compulsive behaviour.

[Taigh815 264]

Hmm. Check this out ... (The key part is from about 7 minutes.)

 

[Evie Rosewood 518]

58 minutes ago, Taigh815 said:

Hmm. Check this out ... (The key part is from about 7 minutes.)

 

I don’t really have the time to unpack this atm, but I will say that Dr. Robert Lustig is highly criticized for making exaggerated claims and being heavily biased in his work. 

[Taigh815 264]

Ah. Did not know that.

[Taigh815 264]

2 hours ago, Berlin Moss said:

I don’t really have the time to unpack this atm, but I will say that Dr. Robert Lustig is highly criticized for making exaggerated claims and being heavily biased in his work. 

Mind you, a lot of eminent people in the medical field have been accused of that lately. With disastrous consequences. I don't know enough to critique him myself, but happy to learn.

[Orpheo12 70]

4 hours ago, Berlin Moss said:

Humans are wired for connection and are naturally drawn towards physical contact with others...If there are people who are willing to provide a supply for the demand, that's not inherently exploitative just on its own....

...I would argue that while sex and human contact can have a therapeutic benefit, it is a far cry from an actual form of therapy. The key difference here being that therapy has a mindfully structured and goal-oriented treatment protocol that aligns with specific methodologies...

... Because "sex addiction" fails to activate the same parts of the brain that typical addictions do. It does not appear in the DSM-5 as a diagnosable mental health condition... The difference here is the internalized shame that "sex addicts" themselves have attached to the specific activity. 

[But] there are many people that engage in sex and masturbation to the point that it does interfere with their day to day life. This is more effectively treated as a symptom of a larger issue, rather than the primary issue itself. It can also be viewed as a compulsive behaviour. The importance of distinguishing between this and a true addiction is that the treatment procedures for addiction vs. lack of impulse control look very different.

Thank you for your rich response. You name many nuances that deepen my own understanding. For now I refrain from further comment, hoping that others will engage with your observations,

[Taigh815 264]

Here's an interesting video. A little technical, but it covers something a friend asked a while ago. She wondered why so many younger people today are so troubled. My response was that the life we live in the developed West is now so dissociated from the life for which we were designed that major structural problems were emerging. So many of our mores and social structures were built around our actual and deep seated biological needs and motivations and with their erosion in the mistaken belief that we were "advancing", we are coming up against a hard reality. Anyway, listen and learn ...

 

[Evie Rosewood 518]

8 minutes ago, clearbluesky15 said:

I found this part particularly insightful. Thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned post. I also appreciated that you drew a distinction between compulsion and addition. I'll admit I wasn't familiar with that. I'm going to have to read up a bit :-).

 It does get a bit tricky because compulsion and addiction are used so interchangeably, and because there is obviously a compulsive element to addiction. Addiction itself is far more complex than impulse control though because of physiological changes to the brain's communication pathways. 

I've just done a lot of reading of criticism on sex addiction though, and why it's largely rejected by science. It's quite interesting! Mostly it just turns out to be high libido and low impulse control though. I'm far from a neuroscientist, obviously lol, but the things I've read point to a general misunderstanding by the public about how dopamine actually works. 

 

23 minutes ago, Taigh815 said:

Mind you, a lot of eminent people in the medical field have been accused of that lately. With disastrous consequences. I don't know enough to critique him myself, but happy to learn.

Absolutely! There will always be criticisms of anyone! This guy in particular isn't a quack by any means... he just sells an idea that we are all addicted to dopamine, sugar is poison, and that's why we're so miserable... but buy his book so you can fix it. I'll be the first to admit that he guy's far more knowledgeable about brain and body things than myself, but it's been pointed out that he's used to his knowledge to misrepresent science to people who don't know better. 

[Evie Rosewood 518]

.

[Taigh815 264]

1 minute ago, Berlin Moss said:

 It does get a bit tricky because compulsion and addiction are used so interchangeably, and because there is obviously a compulsive element to addiction. Addiction itself is far more complex than impulse control though because of physiological changes to the brain's communication pathways. 

I've just done a lot of reading of criticism on sex addiction though, and why it's largely rejected by science. It's quite interesting! Mostly it just turns out to be high libido and low impulse control though. I'm far from a neuroscientist, obviously lol, but the things I've read point to a general misunderstanding by the public about how dopamine actually works. 

 

Absolutely! There will always be criticisms of anyone! This guy in particular isn't a quack by any means... he just sells an idea that we are all addicted to dopamine, sugar is poison, and that's why we're so miserable... but buy his book so you can fix it. I'll be the first to admit that he guy's far more knowledgeable about brain and body things than myself, but it's been pointed out that he's used to his knowledge to misrepresent science to people who don't know better. 

He ain't the only one! I guess the argument comes down to whether the addiction is to the behavior or the response. Either way it isn't a good place to be.

[Taigh815 264]

2 minutes ago, Berlin Moss said:

https://www.livescience.com/is-there-science-behind-dopamine-fasting-trend.html

Interesting, but the key word I think is "extreme." What I gathered from the Lustig video is that over exposure to dopamine actually caused cell death. I don't know if "fasting" can repair this, but if you go cold turkey early enough, perhaps it can be mitigated.

[Evie Rosewood 518]

4 minutes ago, Taigh815 said:

Interesting, but the key word I think is "extreme." What I gathered from the Lustig video is that over exposure to dopamine actually caused cell death. I don't know if "fasting" can repair this, but if you go cold turkey early enough, perhaps it can be mitigated.

Fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about neuroscience to comment on that. I do know that a lot of times, what we consider "behavioural addictions" are often solved through different treatments than those typically used for substance use disorder, or even gambling (which is the only behavioural addiction that is recognized in the DSM 5). Oftentimes, these "addictive" behaviours actually become less problematic on their own when the root causes, such as low self-esteem, are addressed.

[Orpheo12 70]

On 4/8/2023 at 12:44 PM, Berlin Moss said:

.

Congratulations on your Zen mastery of summarization!

[Greenly 790]

It’s consensual exploitation.

I exploit them for sex, they exploit me for money. 🙂

[Orpheo12 70]

On 4/8/2023 at 1:00 PM, Berlin Moss said:

Fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about neuroscience to comment on that. I do know that a lot of times, what we consider "behavioural addictions" are often solved through different treatments than those typically used for substance use disorder, or even gambling (which is the only behavioural addiction that is recognized in the DSM 5). Oftentimes, these "addictive" behaviours actually become less problematic on their own when the root causes, such as low self-esteem, are addressed.

Underlying my inclusion of addiction and compulsive behavior in the same Venn circle is the suggestion made by many including Dr. Gabor Mate that such learned adaptations are rooted as reactions to relieve the pain of emotional/psychological trauma. The hypothesis is that everyone has experienced intense suffering. Some of us have matured enough to not be as vulnerable to compulsive/addictive temptations, but IMO no-one is immune. Given sufficient negative stimulation (a shyte-storm) we all may find ourselves driven to seek something for relief.

I am not denying the facts of physiological addition to mind-altering substances, but suggest that indulging in such substances begins as part of the same pathology. When we cannot (or are not wise enough to) access healthier forms of relief from suffering, our habitual use of a familiar (but riskier) source of relief conditions us to weakened impulse control and/or the onset of physiological addiction.

If I may return to the original focus on asking if the provision of sexual services relieves or aggravates suffering, it is a complex question. Sex involves the activation of instinctual parts of our brain similar to an addiction, but has far deeper meaning to us than the numbing, distraction, or euphoria of many addictions. Sex fulfills a natural and wonderful human instinct, but is also bound up with our deepest desire for belonging, acceptance, relationship, affection, and bonding. Sexual services cannot truly be all these things, but is a surrogate for them. By seeking the surrogate does a client help themselves, or create a deeper wound because the sexual acts provided were not a genuine expression of love between two or more human beings?  

I had a psychiatrist once whose loving manner felt genuine, and I asked him about it. He said that as a professional he provides his services with genuine compassion -- with love, which is not the same thing as being "in love." I believe that professional companions may be able to do this as well; but it is not easy. Each is a human being with their own issues and experiences. This is why I find it so important to respect and boundaries each sets, and why intimacy like genuine kissing is uncommon.

I have found that as a client when my companion welcomes my tenderness and compassion into the room, our time together is truly wonderful because I can give "with love" as well as receive. 

[Orpheo12 70]

3 minutes ago, Greenly said:

It’s consensual exploitation.

I exploit them for sex, they exploit me for money. 🙂

LOL. By choosing this contract, I assume you regard the trade as benevolent toward your own best interests?

[Allie Zeon 2904]

On 4/7/2023 at 7:03 PM, Orpheo12 said:

My experience of compensating companions for their time has had me wrestling with ethical dilemmas. I'd like to share my thoughts and invite constructive comments.

Why is Sex Work illegal?

Our culture heightens sexual cravings by sexualizing people and products. We are conditioned to crave intimacy as an expression of our wholeness as human beings, and when under other stresses, a lack of healthy opportunities for intimacy can become an unmet need causing suffering and heightening the risk of mental illness and self-harming. So an argument can be made that Companions who provide such services are relieving suffering, and providing a kind of therapy. This has been my experience. I have appreciated the humanity and respect shared in my interactions as a client.

But I also recognize that scratching the itch often makes it worse. Once a lonely heart take the huge risk of seeing a companion, a positive experience intensifies the craving for more, more, more. So there is an obvious parallel to other forms of addiction. Some former taboos, like the use of marijuana, have been legalized and its use is now largely benevolent. By removing the trade from the hands of illegal suppliers the acceptance of such use has also seen larger numbers of people having a net benefit; just as I will enjoy a glass of Zinfandel after this post.

So if the provision of companionship can be genuinely therapeutic (relieving suffering), why does it continue to be regarded as illegal?

There are many good reasons to regard sex work as an evil. Human trafficking is an evil. Getting vulnerable people hooked on hard drugs so they can be pimped out to feed their addition is an evil. Huge amounts of money are passing into the hand of criminals who thrive on hurting people by whatever means enhances their profit. So there are aspects of the industry that are and should be prosecuted as criminal.

Under our present laws, selling sexual services is legal, but buying such services is illegal. For Sex Workers the legalization of providing services must be a great benefit, adding to the dignity and lessening the risk of choosing this profession. It is reasonable to criminalize those who seek their services?

I would argue that because much of sex work still does involve horrific exploitation, the answer is not a simple "no." But the harms are greater because the trade is still illegal for those seeking it. Were it legal, and protected as a human right (both providing and seeking), the opportunities for criminal exploitation would lessen and the mortal outrage against such activities would become harder to sustain rationally.

IMO, making sex work legal and regulated would be a positive step in the ethical evolution of our culture. Sex itself would become recognized as a healthy expression of human interactions rather than a dirty taboo, at least when paying for it.

In my experience, the companions I have met have been lovely persons with their own agency, enjoying dignity and treating me with respect in my vulnerability. Thank you.

Hallelujah! 

Canada is way better than the US with regards to escorting.

The law can be contradicting sometimes since it has to be reviewed and are gathered from multiple sources, parties, groups, etc before announcing and Legalizing it.

You have come up with open ended questions but in the end, you sum it up nicely with regards to this industry.

Sorry for the late reply,

I will answer in more details once I'm back home.

On tour now, so exhausting 😞

Allie 

[Grant.Wild 5]

This is a great post!  I struggle with the dilemma too!

 

I am someone that fights for the underdog and have worked with the homeless, addicted, mentally unwell, and other areas of people facing disadvantages. 
 

Some women (men and others also) readily and freely choose this line of work.  Others choose to do it out of a necessity to survive. And yet some are forced into it by people profiting off their backs.

 

I hate to feel that im

contributing to any negative repercussions, but I think it’s impossible not to contribute at least in some way to the negatives, if using these services.

 

The way I’ve tried to justify it in my head:

1. These ladies are doing a great service for me.
2. Whether or not I use their services they’ll still have to do the work.

3. At least I know that while they are with me they will be treated with dignity and respect (not including the argument that it’s disrespectful in some way to be using the services to begin with).
 

I have heard the stories about the A-holes and dangerous situations some of these ladies have been placed in and I think they at least appreciate not having to worry about these things with me. 

 

I don’t think there is an easy answer.  Although some might say there is an east answer “just don’t use the services”. But some of us have a genuine need for these services IMO.

 

All that said, if you do use these services please be good to these people.  Respect them, and still ask for consent!  If being rude or disrespectful somehow gets you off, talk to them up front to let them know what you’re looking for and see if it can be a mutually agreeable experience. 
 

We are all humans and we’re all dealing with something.  So please be nice! “We are all in this (life) together”

[Orpheo12 70]

11 hours ago, Allie Zeon said:

I will answer in more details once I'm back home.

On tour now, so exhausting 😞

Allie 

Too many Adonis's? ;-)

[NSGuy14 1232]

After reading this thread, I'm now addicted to reading anything Berlin Moss cares to write ! 😄

[Evie Rosewood 518]

2 hours ago, NSGuy14 said:

After reading this thread, I'm now addicted to reading anything Berlin Moss cares to write ! 😄

I’ve got all the early morning rambling you can handle 😅💁🏼‍♀️

[Taigh815 264]

12 hours ago, Berlin Moss said:

I’ve got all the early morning rambling you can handle 😅💁🏼‍♀️

Yeah? Happy to test that theory 😉