Chatting with Wellness Industry Workers

[Herbert Spencer]

Just as we long had suspected.  People who drop 40 grand on hookers don't want sex...it's just the only way dorks like Elmer can get a woman (or female impersonator) to talk to them.

Next time he gets caught in flagrante de-lick-toe look for Elmer to claim he's a "rogue sociologist."

Five myths about prostitution

By Sudhir Venkatesh
Sunday, September 12, 2010
. . .
2. Men visit sex workers for sex.

Often, they pay them to talk. I've been studying high-end sex workers (by which I mean those who earn more than $250 per "session") in New York, Chicago and Paris for more than a decade, and one of my most startling findings is that many men pay women to not have sex. Well, they pay for sex, but end up chatting or having dinner and never get around to physical contact. Approximately 40 percent of high-end sex worker transactions end up being sex-free. Even at the lower end of the market, about 20 percent of transactions don't ultimately involve sex.

Figuring out why men pay for sex they don't have could sustain New York's therapists for a long time. But the observations of one Big Apple-based sex worker are typical: "Men like it when you listen. . . . I learned this a long time ago. They pay you to listen -- and to tell them how great they are." Indeed, the high-end sex workers I have studied routinely see themselves as acting the part of a counselor or a marriage therapist. They say their job is to feed a man's need for judgment-free friendship and, at times, to help him repair his broken partnership. Little wonder, then, that so many describe themselves to me as members of the "wellness" industry.
. . .
Sudhir Venkatesh is a professor of sociology at Columbia University and the author of "Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets."

[Virtual Bison]

Being a libertarian I have nothing against guys, or women for that matter, paying for sex.

I see it this way, if people want to get laid and meet in a laundermat, their work or anyplace else to have sex its their business. But heaven forbid, should money change hands its a crime!

If consenting adults (and yes, they must be adults) want to have sex its nobody else's concern. That is why prostitution laws are wrong.

You might want to check out this article here, posted by a former sex worker:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-pe...07975.html

[Albert Hidel]

Being a libertarian I have nothing against guys, or women for that matter, paying for sex.

The obvious health and safety issues aside, there is a difference between libertarian and libertine.  As author Chuck George wrote:

Libertarians do not support any sense of encouragement for the use of alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, prostitution, etc., by or among consenting adults. Libertarians decry the abuse of alcohol, drugs, pornography, prostitution, etc. Libertarians absolutely oppose the use of coercion in the practices of alcohol or drug use, pornography, prostitution, etc.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george4.html

And as a practical—rather than theoretical—matter, coercion is inherent in the prostitution industry.  These theoretical “transactions between consenting adults” do not correspond to the stark reality of the sexual marketplace.  The fact is that where prostitution is “legal,” either overtly or in practice, women are exploited, abused, and consigned to sexual slavery.  That is not in any way consistent with “libertarian” ideals.  

And anyone who acts as a “purchaser” in such transactions is participating in and contributing to that coercion and exploitation.  It cannot be justified as merely a harmless exercise in “libertarian” ideals because it’s not.

Legalized Prostitution and Sexual Slavery

I'd always said, gee, of course prostitution should be legal.  I'm changing my mind.  San Francisco has de facto legalized prostitution.  You can go to MyRedBook.com to read reviews of "massage parlors."  Prostitution is, more-or-less, legal.

San Francisco is, not coincidentally, a center for sexual slavery.  The San Francisco Chronicle did a report on this issue in 2006.  The situation has not changed.  

This Chronicle article is something to read if you're in favor of legalized prostitution.

It's so easy for those of us to say, "Freedom!"  Yet, in reality, our freedom to pay for sex comes at the expense of a sex slave.

I'm sure some of you can make libertarian arguments in favor of legalized prostitution.  None of them will be arguments I have not thought of or considered.

In reality, centers where prostitution is legal in form or substance - like Amsterdam and San Francisco - are also centers of sex slavery.  This is not abstract argument or a priori philosophical nonsense.  This is empirical fact.

How can you support legalized prostitution when it will – in fact - lead to sexual slavery?

[ham]

Figuring out why men pay for sex they don't have could sustain New York's therapists for a long time. But the observations of one Big Apple-based sex worker are typical: "Men like it when you listen. . . . I learned this a long time ago. They pay you to listen -- and to tell them how great they are." Indeed, the high-end sex workers I have studied routinely see themselves as acting the part of a counselor or a marriage therapist. They say their job is to feed a man's need for judgment-free friendship and, at times, to help him repair his broken partnership. Little wonder, then, that so many describe themselves to me as members of the "wellness" industry.

Oh yes, with all the strong women, feminists, bulldykes etc out there blowing poor Harry's hair back for every minor thing, no wonder they pay hooker to listen and have no sex because statistics tell that 1 person in 2 suffers from sexual dysfunction or other symptom that affects sexual performances.

And as a practical—rather than theoretical—matter, coercion is inherent in the prostitution industry.  These theoretical “transactions between consenting adults” do not correspond to the stark reality of the sexual marketplace.  The fact is that where prostitution is “legal,” either overtly or in practice, women are exploited, abused, and consigned to sexual slavery.  That is not in any way consistent with “libertarian” ideals.  

And anyone who acts as a “purchaser” in such transactions is participating in and contributing to that coercion and exploitation.  It cannot be justified as merely a harmless exercise in “libertarian” ideals because it’s not.

I have a Leninist Youth pin I can send you anytime.
While it is difficult to disprove that some degree of exploitation unfolds in some clusters of the prostitution arena, that isn't by far the norm: just think about the booming college prostitution thing and its antecedents. Hell, Walmart employees think they are the most exploited on the planet! Girls want cash...now and fast...they don't want to slave away in a MacJob making minimum wage, while they could do many times more in a fraction of the times listening to poor saps who won't touch them...and if they do, a study told western men last an average of 7 minutes...
By your standards, people of color are being oppressed too...I see them as major clients of the affirmative action, welfare gravy train and crime stats, but you can see them as powerless victims, too.
Years back Ham was an avid strip club/brothel regular...Ham never witnesses the mythical exploitation whigroes and liberals whine about...just girls wanting to pull a fast one.
Yes, when they borrowed money from pimps for drugs and other stuff,it could get nasty fast at 8% compounded monthly rate...but nobody obliged them to...nobody shoved drugs up their nose...and yes, you had girls making perhaps $100-300 a night (working between 10 or so to 2AM) who still needed to borrow money...very hot girls could make much more and still borrow money from pimps...do YOU make $300 in 4-5 hours, tax free? Besides, lots of people run into trouble for borrowing money from nasty characters outside of the prostitution world.
In fact, there are sawy prostitutes who  manage their income well, retire early and say set up a book shop...but many end up dejected even after earning hundreds of thousands tax free...their fault, I say.
You make it sound as if the world owes something to Africans who underachieve in school as a category...I say the world owes them nothing.
You are making excuses for some people's shortcomings...their problem, I say.
None says prostitution is the city of god...but it is THEIR SOLE CHOICE to try pulling a fast one instead of macjobbing with minimum wage.

[Martin Eisenstadt]

Years back Ham was an avid strip club/brothel regular...

Or in the sage words uttered by Otis Young in The Last Detail (1973):

Mulhall: Chant your ass off, kid. But any pussy you get in this world, you gonna have to pay for, one way or another.
Buddusky: Hallelujah!

[Little Arminius]

Prostitution

I'm sure that John Bear and the pornographer Chip believe it should be decriminalized. Contreras may very well be in this camp, too.

I'm just as sure that Bruce Tait and the late Uncle Janko are/were strongly opposed to it and believe(d) that it should remain illegal. Jimmy Clifton, Robert Ray Hill and Rambo probably agree.

The rest I'm not so sure about. Where does a Bill Huffman, Rich Douglas, Nosborne, Abner, George Gollin (George Dana Gollin, Gollum, George Gollinsky), Ted Heiks, Hungry Ghost, Steve Foerster, Jack Tracey, Steve Levicoff, Maniac Craniac, Michael Gates, Kizmet, etc. come down on this issue? I'd like to hear it from them with short explanations of their position but since they try to act like I'm not in the room, I'll just solicit guesses from our membership. 

[Little Arminius]

Also, I'm dying to hear what Soupbone and Lerner think about the notion of decriminalizing prostitution?

[Don Dresden]

I'd like to hear it from them with short explanations of their position...

Presumes they are capable of formulating intelligent opinions on the topic.  You are giving that bunch far more credit than they are due.

As we have seen from their ramblings, unless Bear writes a book about it or otherwise tells them what to think, they don't know.  

Contreras claims to be a "libertarian," but he is the only libertarian I know of who is also an adjudicated anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator.  

People often try to apply the "libertarian" label whenever they mean to say "I can do any damn thing I want."  They have no idea what the term means nor do they understand the underlying economic or social philosophies.  (Not picking on anyone here, just saying.)

[ham]

People often try to apply the "libertarian" label whenever they mean to say "I can do any damn thing I want."  They have no idea what the term means nor do they understand the underlying economic or social philosophies.  (Not picking on anyone here, just saying.)

While there have been a number of authors defined as quintessential, there is no canon when it comes to any socio-political philosophy. I discussed once with a formerly prominent Austrian socialist, and he was as opposed to immigration as you can be: cheap labor and its puppeteers sabotage the proletarians' collective struggle. So it depends on who you ask.
I guess all the fuss about prostitution depends on misinterpreted religious values...since the big book here cannot conceive a woman could be willingly work in the sex trade, they make up all fantasy cases of exploitation: it must be that way...PFFT!
And of course, when prostitutes are caught working illegally, what are they going to say? That a panzerdivision SS rolled into town, rounded them up and forced them at oven-point into prostitution...much as the serial murderer who invariably had a bad childhood...

[Virtual Bison]

something to read if you're in favor of legalized prostitution.[/url]

It's so easy for those of us to say, "Freedom!"  Yet, in reality, our freedom to pay for sex comes at the expense of a sex slave.

I'm sure some of you can make libertarian arguments in favor of legalized prostitution.  None of them will be arguments I have not thought of or considered.

In reality, centers where prostitution is legal in form or substance - like Amsterdam and San Francisco - are also centers of sex slavery.  This is not abstract argument or a priori philosophical nonsense.  This is empirical fact.

How can you support legalized prostitution when it will – in fact - lead to sexual slavery?

[/quote]

I think we need to draw the line between exploitation and free association.

If you violate the rights of someone else when you pursue sexual gratification than you are committing a crime. That is how it should be.

I do not believe in men or women having sex with minors. I do not believe that anyone should be coerced into having sex.

But I do know that there are men and women who willfully engage in sex for money. Many of them do, in fact make very good livlihoods in the sex trade.

Not that I think that its right or moral or just for people to have sex for money. But I look at it this way...

You can go to an internet chat room, a bar, cafe or laundermat and meet someone, have sex and be done with it and nobody will charge you with a crime. It does not matter if the sex is meaningful or if its a fling. The participants can be married or single. They may even lie about their maritial status. And nobody cares.

So why is it that if any money changes hands it becomes a crime?

In many countries of the world prostitution is legal and open. Sex workers are not expoited and are often in labor unions. The state gets its cut of the money and underaged and expolited sex workers can get help. In fact if you bring anything into the open, whether it is sex or drugs or whatever you can regulate it a lot better.