Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overly analytical guide to escorting

knowingless.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 465 posts

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#361

Post by onemoresoop »

This reminds me of my friend's story. He started dating this girl, she was intelligent and hot. He's a good looking guy and seemed like a match. They went out for a while and my friend sensed something wrong, it's something he just couldn't put his finger on. After a while he managed to get her to open up and talk about her past. She admitted to being an escort for a period of time and that is very weird, she was coming from a good family, had Ivy League education, great job and all, she basically didn't need to do this. And it wasn't for the money according to her.

I asked him what was the big deal after all, at the end of the day aren't we all making some bad decisions? Aside from being a good date, that thing he couldn't really put his finger on was around intimacy: she seemed to be, as he described, dead inside, the sex felt fake, somewhat mechanical or acted out.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#362

Post by another_why »

strken wrote: post #221
heurisko wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sex as labour is no different than any labour. If that is true, then a thought experiment would be: should refusing to enter prostitution be a grounds for losing jobseekers' welfare, eg. jobseekers allowance [1]? [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowa...

It's comparable to working in a butcher that specialises in pork. Clearly, the job would be unsuitable for a Muslim or vegan jobseeker. That's why the government website specifies suitable jobs and has an exception for a good reason not to do the job. I agree with the general principle that not all labour is the same, but I don't think prostitution is in a class of its own. If you paid me enough I'd probably do it fo…

> If you paid me enough I'd probably do it for a week and then retire.

Maybe this means that you don't really like your job? If you had access to the same goods as everyone else around you, more or less, and liked what you are doing, then doing it for a week stops making sense, doesn't it?

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#363

Post by Yoric »

carlob wrote: post #181
Yoric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it a bit surprising that 17% report STDs while only 9% report not using a condom at all. I would have expected causality.

Do you think condoms are always 100% effective at preventing all STDs?

No, but I'm surprised because 8 points of difference is a frigging lot.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#364

Post by eevilspock »

rndgermandude wrote: post #352
eevilspock wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you see all of these examples, yours (the Walmat worker, chicken factory worker, etc) and mine (the woman doing sex work out of desperation) as just a fact of life, the nature of things, everyone's gotta do what they gotta do? Or do you see them all as exploitation? As manifestations of the inherent injustices of our socioeconomic system? Or something else? How do you feel about the description "consenting adul…

>What about a female employee who doesn't stop her boss's sexual advances because he controls her income and career? Is that a transaction between consenting adults? You're trying to flip the script here. A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). I was never talking about t…

Flipping of the script? No.

> A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse).

By your logic, she can say no. She can "look at options in the job market". She can go get a job at McDonald's. By your logic, its consensual and not coercion. By your logic, the boss is morally free and clear as long a an employee can go find a job somewhere else. At will employment, right?

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#365

Post by mst »

zozbot234 wrote: post #292
mst wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misspelled 'illegal' - people being unable to go to the police is traffickers' preferred situation. Legalisation, thereby making the same worker protections available as to everybody else, is precisely how to screw them over. The messaging saying otherwise is largely from conservative and/or radfem organisations who're trying to get people to conflate prostitution and trafficking because they want to wipe out all…

> There's a strong parallel to the war on drugs here - criminalisation largely benefits the criminals. The obvious difference is that one can easily supply drugs in a legal market without engaging in other socially harmful behaviors. A closer analogy is trade in endangered animals. When you ban, e.g. the ivory trade and deprive it of a market, this has a direct effect on how many elephants get poached. Trying to regu…

Making it impossible for people who're being abused to go to the police without risking at least one of arrest, homelessness, or having their children taken away, is not a net win.

The idea that making it easier to contact the police about the genuinely coercive stuff would somehow make it easy for the people doing the coercion isn't logical.

You can see the process play out just the same with illegal immigrants - they're also massively more open to abuse from employers because they don't have full access to the criminal justice system.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#366

Post by another_why »

rndgermandude wrote: post #352
eevilspock wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you see all of these examples, yours (the Walmat worker, chicken factory worker, etc) and mine (the woman doing sex work out of desperation) as just a fact of life, the nature of things, everyone's gotta do what they gotta do? Or do you see them all as exploitation? As manifestations of the inherent injustices of our socioeconomic system? Or something else? How do you feel about the description "consenting adul…

>What about a female employee who doesn't stop her boss's sexual advances because he controls her income and career? Is that a transaction between consenting adults? You're trying to flip the script here. A boss (i.e. a concrete person yielding some form of power over another person) trying to coerce the employee is on the same line as a pimp or human traffickers using coercion (or worse). I was never talking about t…

> I was talking about a person who looks at the options in the job market, and figures all on own their that prostitution is the least shitty option available to them.

If prostitution, which is heavily stigmatized by the society a person lives in and is illegal, starts looking attractive, then there is something wrong, don't you think? The problem is not decriminalization, the problem is that people don't have anywhere to look at if they want a decent life.

> And some prostitutes reportedly even like their job well enough.

Which part of it, stigma, having no rights or a fair chance to get degraded/killed/catch STD/highly reducing their chances of having a romantic relationship?

>they can join the large group of other people who do not like their jobs either, but do it anyway to provide for themselves and loved ones.

You can't provide for yourself and, even more so for you loved ones, by working at McDonalds. You can barely survive.

> There is no coerced consent.

Sure, if you have 2 choices - prostitution or dying from starvation, then it's not coerced consent. You always had a choice to die.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#367

Post by ipsum2 »

pc86 wrote: post #255
ipsum2 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a fickle beast. My guess is that this post was marked by moderators manually to ignore flags.

That's a pretty big assumption, what makes you think that?

Because of the parent:

> I posted a similar article by the same author a couple of years ago called "An Overly Analytical Guide to Camgirling" but it got flagged to death

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#368

Post by spoonjim »

manquer wrote: post #171
spoonjim wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending a former escort private messages about fucking her is much grosser than commenting on a very frank blog post she’s made about her experiences.

Going by post doesn't seem to indicate she is former. In the last paragraph she mentions her concerns about escorting in the future given her blog detailing the industry in this detail.

Lol if she comes back online I’ll be priced out. She’s now the favorite of VCs and HODLers.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#369

Post by spoonjim »

Aella wrote: post #346
spoonjim wrote: post #83

As a fan of Aella’s Twitter persona I wish I had known about the escorting before it stopped!

I likely will never be able to advertise escorting as Aella due to legal risks and due to Onlyfans removing anyone who reveals they're an active escort.

Ah, but I think I could recognize you if you used similar photos.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#370

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

im3w1l wrote: post #313
qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part was weird given that women on dating subreddits complain about how guys only want them for sex.

A guy who wants a relationship may only have sex with a handful of women. While a guy who just wants sex can get into the hundreds. That's hundreds of experiences reinforcing that men only want sex compared to just a few saying the opposite. Samppling bias you could say.

Yeah I think you're absolutely right that is a factor
Post reply on HN