Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Q & A’ Category

I am a man living in Asia and I have, on my many lonely nights, reached out to sex workers who have invariably helped and made a difference to my life.  I’ve always endeavoured to treat all with the greatest respect I can provide and I really want to help make a difference because I really respect their work.  My question is how to get engaged in a drive for decriminalisation.  It doesn’t matter where; I just think it should be legal and safe for whomever wants to engage in this line of work anywhere.  I know I have been a huge beneficiary of their efforts and care and I really want to give something back if I can.

monkey see monkey doI believe that charity begins at home, and that your efforts would be best expended on the sex workers in your country.  You don’t mention which Asian country you live in, but there are sex worker rights organizations in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, Hong Kong and a number of other parts of the continent.  In fact, I’ve always admired the strength and courage of Asian sex worker organizations; Asian sex workers are my heroes, and if you can help them in any way, such as by donating money or helping through your profession, it would be invaluable to their struggle.  And that doesn’t just affect your country, either:  humans may be the smartest monkeys, but we’re still monkeys, and “monkey see, monkey do”.  The Swedish model has spread because the monkeys in power get the idea from watching other boss monkeys impose it on their tribes, and the more countries decriminalize sex work the more likely it is that the monkeys in other trees will see and imitate that behavior, too.  So to elaborate on my initial statement: charity does indeed begin at home, but the ripples spread out to affect the whole world.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

Unwanted Strings

I have found that when I have sex with a man I start feeling very bonded to him, especially because I don’t have sex often.  How does one separate the sex from the feelings so one doesn’t become attached to the man?  I’m afraid to be sexually involved because I think I might get attached and he might not be the right man for me, and then I’ll feel the loss and detachment which is sometimes painful.

This is not at all an easy question, and I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer it in a way that will give you any help.  The reason for this is that I believe the tendency to bond with someone during sex is more a matter of temperament and biology than anything else; a lesbian-leaning bisexual woman, for example, might tend to bond with women she bedded but not men, and of course sex workers have no problem walking away from work arrangements without any residual bond whatsoever.  I’ve known women who can have as much sex as they like (or can contract for) without any risk of the sort of inappropriate bonding you describe, while others get attached very easily and become serial monogamists who tend to fall “in love” with every man they sleep with (even if he has very little to recommend him).  This is even true of men; while most men can have no-strings sex without emotional consequences, I’ve known more than one man who lacks the ability and will fall quite easily based on nothing other than the fact he had sex with the object of his affection.  It doesn’t even seem to have anything to do with age or relative experience; I’ve known young women who can sleep around as carefree as any man, and older ones who have been “in love” literally dozens of times.  It’s possible that you can eventually learn not to act upon the feelings sex generates in your psyche, but unless I’m very wrong about this I don’t think it will be easy – and maybe not even possible – to teach yourself not to feel those feelings in the first place.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

The fatality rate of sex workers is more than twice the rate of the most fatal “legitimate” job on the books (logging), but from what I can find, the majority of fatalities are concentrated among street workers.  A lot of the things that make street work dangerous are the same things that make it dangerous to be a taxi driver:  working at night, working alone, handling cash, etc.  But sex workers are murdered at a rate ten times higher than taxi drivers, and I think it’s because of criminalization.  Street workers avoid arrest by getting off the street as quickly as possible.  They have no time to screen, very little time to negotiate, and next to no control over their environment once they get into the car, and can’t even go to the police if anything happens.  But the majority of sex workers are “indoor” workers, and their fatality rate is much lower than street workers.  Part of it is that they’re not forced to work at night or in high crime areas, but I think it’s also important that they avoid arrest by screening and just being extremely cautious in general.  Do you think that would change if sex work was legalized?  Without the threat of arrest to keep escorts cautious, would escorting become a more dangerous profession?

Fox in the HenhouseThe murder rate for street workers is not really as high as these studies claim; they’re based in the assumption that the sex worker population can be accurately estimated, which is a mighty stretch indeed.  It is extremely likely that the total population is dramatically undercounted in these studies, but nobody cares because they want the sex work murder rate to come out much higher than it really is to provide a pretext for banning it.

That having been said, the murder rate for outdoor workers is still outrageously high, largely for the reasons you surmise but also for the fact that violent men purposefully seek out sex workers because, as Robert Pickton pointed out, nobody notices or cares when they vanish.  That simply isn’t true for indoor workers, who tend to have better social networks; their death or disappearance would be noticed just as quickly as any other woman’s.  While it’s true that escorts are forced to be even more careful because of criminalization, that vigilance all goes toward the organized predators who inflict the lion’s share of violence on sex workers: the police.  So yes, removing criminalization might make escorts less careful…but they wouldn’t need to be so cautious because the most dangerous and numerous predators would also be gone.  Under decriminalization, violence against sex workers is much lower than even in legalized regimes, and much lower than under criminalization, a system in which the foxes are set to guard the henhouse, and nobody notices or cares how many chickens they satisfy their appetites upon.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

I’ve seen a fairly common complaint in hobbyist forums — apparently some providers will be deliberately vague about their services (as they must be), and sometimes it’s not until the actual appointment that a client realizes the provider does not offer “full service”.  Do you think providers do this purposefully or is it just an unfortunate effect of the industry being underground?  Do you think these providers have a responsibility to communicate their strict limits before an encounter, or should clients not assume anything about what they’ll receive?

smoke and mirrorsI do think that the vagueness about services is a direct (and wholly predictable) result of criminalization.  Since our society wants to pretend that it’s moral and legal to criminalize thoughts (because that’s what motives are) in the case of sex, we arrive at the bizarre and absurd situation of two totally benign and legal activities (offering sex and asking others for money) becoming illegal when performed together.  It’s therefore necessary to break the link between the two in situations where one suspects armed busybodies might be skulking about with intent to ruin peaceful people’s lives, either by being straightforward about the sex but coy about the money, or straightforward about the money but coy about the sex.  The well-known Backpage nonsense about “roses” and common euphemisms such as “donation” are attempts at the former, while the standard “time and companionship only” disclaimer is an attempt at the latter.  I say “attempt” because this evasive language fools absolutely nobody from escort to client to cop to judge; it’s part of an elaborate pantomime our society has concocted to pretend that persecution of private sexual behavior can ever be legitimate, and sex workers participate in it as a means of whistling in the dark and skating just below the strict evidentiary standard a judge who recognizes prostitution laws as evil (but dares not say so aloud) might impose upon cops and prosecutors.

Prostitution laws, and the arse-backward morality which supports and nourishes them, create an environment which rewards duplicity and punishes honesty; many sex workers who might prefer to be honest in their advertising are afraid to be, and some dishonest practitioners are thus easily able to hide amongst them.  Ethically speaking, an escort should not take money for a service she doesn’t actually provide, nor lie about her services, nor allow clients to believe she offers things that she doesn’t; practically speaking, a client shouldn’t assume that absolutely everything he might want will absolutely be on the menu.  Absolutely nobody but fraudsters and prohibitionists benefit from this kind of poor communication; a sex worker who doesn’t offer a given service doesn’t really want clients trying to push her into providing it, and a client who wants a particular service doesn’t really want to end up with someone who can’t or won’t provide it.  The review system is an attempt to bring some sort of transparency to the process by establishing how individual escorts have behaved over time, but there will never be a wholly open and honest marketplace in our trade until we can do away with the smoke and mirrors created by criminalization and the demimonde’s attempts to protect itself from persecution.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

Not With a Ruler

I’m a have a micropenis, described by a urologist as “infantile” in size.  In “All Shapes and Sizes” you stated:  “…even a man like that could be compatible with a woman who loves cunnilingus above all else.”  That’s true in theory, but my experience has been that women who are spontaneously aroused and who have strong sexual appetites, even if they prefer pleasures other than vaginal intercourse, will eventually find that element to be missing and pursue it elsewhere.  Would the probability of meeting a woman who really doesn’t care about penis size really be higher than of finding a woman who is only two inches deep when she’s aroused?  Or one who is willing and who can enjoy sex, but who is also not all that interested in sex to begin with, or who is highly responsive rather than spontaneous in her desire?  

tiny man leaving a womanI think you’re reading far too much into that particular bit of advice.  It was not intended to be the only situation I could think of in which a woman might be happy with a man lacking in the size department; another might be a very dominant woman seeking a man for the sort of kink play that doesn’t require him to be well-endowed, and still another a sex worker or polyamorous woman who doesn’t equate sex with exclusive partnership.  I can tell you from firsthand experience that the situations you describe would not be solutions for the monogamous, because I fit both of those categories.  I have an exceptionally small, tight vagina…and a two-inch penis would still have no effect on me.  And though my sex drive is entirely reactive, that doesn’t mean a tiny cock would do anything for me once I am aroused.  Stated more generally, I doubt there’s an adult vagina small enough that a micropenis would fit it snugly, and how a woman gets aroused has nothing to do with what it takes for her to be satisfied once she is.  I therefore feel your best bet is not to try to find a woman who wants nothing other than a very small penis (which seems to be the track you’re on), but rather one whose feelings of commitment for you cannot be measured with a ruler.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

Thing of the Past

Once I let a man wing by without references; he claimed to be a lawyer who would bring his business card along.  But instead of a safe, elderly client, what I got instead was a whole squad of cop cars and repeated pounding on my door.  I wasn’t stupid enough to open it, and eventually they left.  I moved immediately, and never again will I trust an unscreened client.  But with MyRedBook gone, I am leery of references; I’m desperately looking for an alternative, but my hopes aren’t high.  Do you have any screening procedures you could recommend, now that references are becoming a thing of the past?

magnifying glassReferences are a great method of screening, but not the only way.  You could try running a client’s name through Intellius or a similar “background check” service, or simply Googling it; alas, you can only get really good results from either of those if the client is willing to give you his full name, age and address, and anyone who is reluctant to give references may be equally reluctant to provide other screening info.  P411 uses employment screening, and you can do it yourself just as they do; simply call the client’s work and ask to speak to Mr. So-and-So, then make sure the man you’re connected to is the one you spoke to before.  If you have never heard of the company, you need to check up on it in the phone book and online; cops can create fake companies, but such fakes won’t have any kind of history in public records.  The most important kind of screening, though, is your gut; talk to the man on the phone and see how you feel about him.  If he seems creepy, cocky, suspicious or overly interested in details, or even if he just sets off your alarm bells in  way you can’t adequately define, you may want to pass on seeing him.  Of course, some cops are such practiced sociopaths that they can lie to their victims and seem perfectly normal while doing it, so you will probably want to take the final precaution of not revealing your exact address until he arrives nearby at the proper time and calls you.  Not giving an exact location in advance makes it much harder for cops to organize the kind of nasty trick they pulled on you before.  If you really want to be cautious, you could even meet the client in a nearby cafe or the like, so that you can look him in the eye and feel him out before taking the final step of letting him in your door.

Remember, long before the advent of the internet, we relied on our instincts to screen clients, and we mostly did pretty well.  And now that our enemies are attacking the external methods by which we protect ourselves, the old ones supplied by Mother Nature are becoming much more important again.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

Fadeaway

I’ve never been very confident with women, so at the age of 28 I lost my virginity to a sex worker.  I continued to see other professionals since then as time and money allows.  Then two years ago I met a sex worker who was exactly my type; she soon gave me her personal phone number, and we texted a lot about upcoming meetings and about other things.  The last time we met in person she trusted me enough to let me take pictures of her (she advertised without showing her face), and invited me to karaoke with her.  A few weeks later I texted again, and her sister replied to me, saying she was in hospital and wouldn’t be working.  I wrote to her booker (who knew she liked me) and asked if she knew more, and she led me to believe that the problem was mental health related.  Not knowing what else to do, I’d send a little “get well soon” text to her every few weeks.  Eventually she responded, saying she was out of the hospital but unlikely to ever work again.  She seemed to appreciate my messages, and we continued to text for most of last year.  Eventually, I offered to take her out to a platonic dinner in August.  She said yes, and I made arrangements.  A couple of days before, she pulled out and begged forgiveness, saying she still didn’t feel physically up to anything.  I took this well, and continued to text her every other week as I had been before, but she soon stopped replying.  She’s been out of hospital for a year now, and I haven’t heard from her since summer.  I’m wondering if there’s anything else I can do.  I just don’t know how to deal with silence.  If she told me to “please stop” I’d absolutely respect that, but I’m worried she may have had a relapse or something like that too.Ghost Woman on Train Track by epica3

Human beings are complicated creatures; not only is it possible for us to feel multiple conflicting emotions at the same time, but we do it with astonishing frequency.   What this means in your case is that, though the lady does seem to have been genuinely interested in you, it’s also pretty clear that she doesn’t want you in her life any more.  Why?  There’s no way to know for sure, but I suspect it isn’t coincidental.  If the reason she ended up in hospital was indeed mental health-related as you suspect, it could be tied in with burnout or with ambivalent feelings about her work, and if that’s the case it’s no surprise that she no longer wants to communicate with a client, even a cherished one…especially a cherished one, really.  My guess is that she wants to break entirely with her old life, and that includes you.  But since she really does like you, she doesn’t want to hurt you and is instead pulling a classic feminine move called the fadeaway.  In a way, this breakup method is even more cruel because there’s no closure for the one rejected; however, it feels less cruel to the one doing the fadeaway, and in her mind that’s what counts.  You don’t have much choice but to move on; at this point all you’re accomplishing is hurting both of you.  Enjoy your memories of her, send her prayers or good wishes, and then close that chapter in your heart so you can be ready to love someone else.  Because she did give you one priceless gift: your first love.  And you may find that, painful as the experience was, it has prepared you for other intimate relationships, paid or otherwise.

(Have a question of your own?  Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,311 other followers