Raise The Rate 2018 Proposal Letter

[+ WilliamM]

So what if all the reviews and all the websites suddenly went away? It would suck. It would definitely be more like my first year, which was harder.

But I actually think it would probably suck more for clients than providers. In a riskier world, would some demand go away? Almost certainly. Would most go away? Almost certainly not. I can count the number of assholes I met on maybe one hand. If the more marginal people went away, to be very blunt it would probably just mean even fewer assholes.

 

I started hiring in the 1990s, and seldom used escort agencies. My memory of those early years does not include great difficulty finding hires. But, I live in a large city and visited New York City often. It was probably very different for people who lived in rural areas here and in other countries.

[marylander1940]

LOL everyone who hates me because I’m “arrogant”, mixed-race and connected to my culture, and/or not muscular enough, PLEASE feel free to add me to your ignore list. In fact, I encourage it. The ignore function is there for a reason. USE IT!

 

I still have MANY more likes here than posts, so until that changes I’m going to consider my contributions useful to a significant cross-section of the members here. And last I checked it wasn’t against the rules for posting members to spend time in multiple countries. Or maybe its just non-white countries that some of the posters on this forum find it noteworthy to mock people for spending time in??

 

FYI, I already have multiple streams of income and all of them are related to the sex industry. Escorting just happens to be by far the most lucrative for me, the one that I enjoy the most, and the one that I have been doing the longest.

 

Neither whiny entitled clients who are infuriated by rate-raising threads nor sad bored men who have nothing better to do than make negative comments about my body have been included in my target client base for as long as I understood how to have one. Happy ignoring...

 

We appreciate your participation as an escort, and NO we don't hate you. That's a very powerful word to be used with someone we barely know online.

I spend time in India because I’m Indian. If mocking me for being currently in India doesn’t amount to racism in your opinion, then you don’t understand how racism operates. Unsurprising.

 

I am well aware why my posts came off in a negative way to many of the posters on this thread. Many of their posts came off in a negative way to me as well. Your condescension is unnecessary. I simply do not care.

 

I can't talk for all on here but I don't think that was the intention. I'm sure there's plenty of wealthy folks in India to keep many escorts busy. If someone ever mocks you for spending time there escorting he is a fool.

[+ WilliamM]

I spend time in India because I’m Indian. If mocking me for being currently in India doesn’t amount to racism in your opinion, then you don’t understand how racism operates. Unsurprising

 

I just started reading this thread today, and knew quickly you were Indian. If other people were unaware so what?

Edited April 9, 2018 by WilliamM

[marylander1940]

In all honesty, I believe the OP and the escort who has now assumed control of the thread could stand to listen to their own advice and take more appealing pictures or go to a gym.

 

[coriolis888]

 

I spend time in India because I’m Indian. If mocking me for being currently in India doesn’t amount to racism in your opinion, then you don’t understand how racism operates. Unsurprising.

 

 

You see, you just presented another example where you incorrectly think you know everything about every subject. This is very sad.

 

I did not "mock" you for being in India. India had nothing to do with anything other than to point out your spending so much time on the internet while you were boasting about how much money you make from clients.

 

Your rentmen ad showed that you were currently in India while you were spending hours making countless postings to this forum - - I doubted that you really were in India - - or in any other country - - plain and simple.

 

You leaped to a negative and erroneous conclusion and interjected racism when there was none there.

 

You do have a lot to learn. Your first learning priority is to shed arrogance and false conclusions and try to gain some maturity.

Edited April 9, 2018 by coriolis888

[FTM Zachary Prince]

I can't talk for all on here but I don't think that was the intention. I'm sure there's plenty of wealthy folks in India to keep many escorts busy. If someone ever mocks you for spending time there escorting he is a fool.

 

Intention doesn’t matter when it comes to racism. If you don’t understand that I’m not here to educate you about it. If you care you can educate yourself. It’s racist to assume that I’m lying about being in India and racist to discount my comments because of the fact that my RM ad says I’m there. Even if that wasn’t the INTENTION...

 

Just FYI, I don’t escort in India except once in a blue moon when someone who knows about me from my US marketing travels here for work... I have been escorting in the USA for 8 years, and I just returned to India from a tour of the USA five days ago.

 

I’m done commenting on this thread. I’ve said plenty and the racist commentary and condescension are spoiling my morning.

 

Peace out.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

In all honesty, I believe the OP and the escort who has now assumed control of the thread could stand to listen to their own advice and take more appealing pictures or go to a gym.

 

To mock a trans guy who has only had a year’s worth of necessary testosterone in his body about not being muscular enough is a SPECIAL kind of low. Congratulations!

[marylander1940]

Intention doesn’t matter when it comes to racism. If you don’t understand that I’m not here to educate you about it. If you care you can educate yourself. It’s racist to assume that I’m lying about being in India and racist to discount my comments because of the fact that my RM ad says I’m there. Even if that wasn’t the INTENTION...

 

Just FYI, I don’t escort in India except once in a blue moon when someone who knows about me from my US marketing travels here for work... I have been escorting in the USA for 8 years, and I just returned to India from a tour of the USA five days ago.

 

I’m done commenting on this thread. I’ve said plenty and the racist commentary and condescension are spoiling my morning.

 

Peace out.

 

I didn't mess with you... No need for you to overreact with me.

[coriolis888]

Intention doesn’t matter when it comes to racism. If you don’t understand that I’m not here to educate you about it. If you care you can educate yourself. It’s racist to assume that I’m lying about being in India and racist to discount my comments because of the fact that my RM ad says I’m there. Even if that wasn’t the INTENTION...

 

Just FYI, I don’t escort in India except once in a blue moon when someone who knows about me from my US marketing travels here for work... I have been escorting in the USA for 8 years, and I just returned to India from a tour of the USA five days ago.

 

I’m done commenting on this thread. I’ve said plenty and the racist commentary and condescension are spoiling my morning.

 

Peace out.

 

 

If you really believe what you just wrote, you urgently need to see a mental health specialist.

 

I wonder what the clients you claim to have would say or do if they had access to read the things you wrote in this forum.

 

I still wish you the best.

[YoungAD]

To mock a trans guy who has only had a year’s worth of necessary testosterone in his body about not being muscular enough is a SPECIAL kind of low. Congratulations!

 

I did no such thing, and I certainly never mentioned anything about your trans status. As a "marketing consultant" you should be well aware that some marketing efforts fail.

[+ Eric Hassan]

I’m with @Lance_Navarro and @VictorPowers on this one. I absolutely love what I do and I’m interested in continuing to be busy. I don’t see raising my rates as an effective means of protesting; it ultimately stands as a fear reaction that screws clients and is counter to my goals.

 

I think we all might benefit from taking a step back and honestly evaluating our reactions. There is a lot of fear and we all know by now that fear is a poor motivator for change, and doesn’t solve problems. I’m not saying that what’s happening right now is right, or fair, or makes any kind of sense at all – like many of you, I’m ready to fight, and I’m ready to see this law go down against a constitutional challenge. But, conducting ourselves as if money is the only thing that matters and acting as if our world will end because of this law is lunacy.

[+ quoththeraven]

Not that I think it'll succeed, but trying to organize an across the board rate increase seems monopolistic.

 

People should do what suits their situation best. By definition that isn't a one-size fits all endeavor.

[Mocha]

If you really believe what you just wrote, you urgently need to see a mental health specialist.

 

I wonder what the clients you claim to have would say or do if they had access to read the things you wrote in this forum.

 

I still wish you the best.

 

Though this wasn't directed to me, statements like that are why some bills get passed into law. The escorts need mental health, but not the suburban kid who's affluent home is host to all kinds of artillery. Or the client who calls an escorts 6 times in one night, but then claims they never made an appointment when it's time to meet up.

 

Instead of agreeing to disagree, you call someone to need mental health. We can't make changes, if clients don't hop on the bandwagon too. We can't fight for freedom as a unit, when there's oppression still coming from the other side. Support has to come from both sides.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Mocha

[MiamiLooker]

I was also part of the group of escorts that raised money for Rentboy's defense.

You were certainly very passionate in appealing to others to donate, but I thought your boyfriend stepped in and made most of your promised donations to your GoFundMe account. At least, that's what he posted on another site, and your GoFundMe page seemed to indicate that was true.

[+ stevenkesslar]

You were certainly very passionate in appealing to others to donate, but I thought your boyfriend stepped in and made most of your promised donations to your GoFundMe account. At least, that's what he posted on another site, and your GoFundMe page seemed to indicate that was true.

 

First of all, he wasn't my boyfriend. He may have thought he was my future fiance, but we now all know that he thought a lot of crazy things.

 

Secondly, could you just delete that post, and I will delete this one? Let's let sleeping dogs lie, okay? Or should I say sleeping pit bulls? The whole thing caused a tremendous amount of pain to a lot of good people who tried to deal with him in good faith, starting with the moderator of this site and going on down, and including me. It will do no good to resurrect his lies and bullshit. Thankfully, it's over.

 

Please let's just hit delete, okay?

[+ stevenkesslar]

There is a lot of fear and we all know by now that fear is a poor motivator for change, and doesn’t solve problems. I’m not saying that what’s happening right now is right, or fair, or makes any kind of sense at all – like many of you, I’m ready to fight, and I’m ready to see this law go down against a constitutional challenge. But, conducting ourselves as if money is the only thing that matters and acting as if our world will end because of this law is lunacy.

 

I strongly agree with your sentiments and really appreciate the fact that you said this. I hit the like button. Lest I be accused of wanting to have it both ways, I wanted to go back to what the OP said in his initial post and underscore something I view as complex, rather than black and white. This is from the OP's original post:

 

"This one act when done in unison by all providers across the country will bring higher quality clients, making your work environment safer AND more profitable. This is only possible if everyone does it. We must stand together in unison as sex-workers. If you can respond to this letter with a simple ‘yes’ you are committing to bettering the quality of your life and future."

 

I think the meaning of those words are pretty clear. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and if you choose to view that paragraph as saying money is the only thing that matters, that's your right. That's not what it says to me. The entire post does include the words "more profitable," But it also uses the words "safer environment" and "quality of your life and future."

 

I've spent years talking about this issue with consumers or clients or whatever word you prefer to call them. While the OP was speaking from the perspective of providers, I am 1000 % sure a lot of consumers share exactly the same concerns about safety and quality, and many will go in exactly the same direction. They are what is referred to above as "higher quality clients." These are not people who wish to respond to some fake NYPD ad and get busted and publicly labelled as a "creep." They are generous already. And if safety and security are an elevated concern - which they could be - they will likely be willing and able to get what they pay for. None of us own crystal balls, so none of us actually know how bad this is going to get.

 

I spent a long time on the phone yesterday with one of the people who makes the Palm Springs event so special, and we both were asking each other whether this will be the last one. Both of us have helped Oliver for years, and neither of us felt like we could really say. So you are exactly right. There is fear. And it's never good to simply act out of fear.

 

Part of my intent from the first post to the OP, on a different thread, was to stress the word unity. Another intent of mine was to stress the word resist. I chose the word because I think it has both political dimensions - let's resist Trump! - and economic dimensions - let's resist this law by focusing on high quality regular clients. Many people are going to be afraid, and some people are going to want to resist.

 

I'm 1000 % sure that there are many consumers here who want nothing to do with political resistance. They are actually the ones who might be more likely to pay more to hire an escort who they know isn't going to turn out to be a flake - or worse, a cop. That could become more of a concern in the brave new world. Others will be willing to resist politically. That very much has to sort itself out. Especially at times like this, it is very important to respect each other, and to respect each other's choices.

 

The question I'm going to keep asking, rhetorically, is this: Fine. If you don't like this form of resistance, what form do you like? Or do you just not like the idea of resistance at all?

 

Eric could not be more correct. That's one to think long and hard about. And we shouldn't be coming up with our answers based on fear or panic.

[YoungAD]

"This one act when done in unison by all providers across the country will bring higher quality clients, making your work environment safer AND more profitable. This is only possible if everyone does it. We must stand together in unison as sex-workers. If you can respond to this letter with a simple ‘yes’ you are committing to bettering the quality of your life and future."

 

I think the meaning of those words are pretty clear. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and if you choose to view that paragraph as saying money is the only thing that matters, that's your right. That's not what it says to me. The entire post does include the words "more profitable," But it also uses the words "safer environment" and "quality of your life and future."

 

The question I'm going to keep asking, rhetorically, is this: Fine. If you don't like this form of resistance, what form do you like? Or do you just not like the idea of resistance at all?

 

It is truly hard to find adequate justification to finance this "revolution" based on a copy-and-paste statement posted by an escort who is virtually unknown in this community. I also find it somewhat ironic and disturbing that the legislation is meant to curb sex-trafficking, while the other escort has bragged repeatedly about "training" new escorts. I am quite satisfied with maintaining my periodic relations with my previous hires, not one of whom has suggested a rate increase is in the near future. I believe the best form of resistance is to continue with business as usual, which is also simply good business.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I believe the best form of resistance is to continue with business as usual, which is also simply good business.

 

The only problem with what you are saying is this: is "business as usual" even an option? I don't think we know. But at least some people are saying and feeling that we're all like that band on the Titanic. Which is why I agree with Eric. Let's not panic. I think these kinds of thoughtful debates are exactly what needs to happen. Lots and lots of them.

 

I'd also suggest maybe we should be asking whether "business as usual" is the problem, in this sense. When Rentboy was shuttered, I think the reaction could be characterized this way. "Don't panic. There's plenty of other websites. Business as usual." When SESTA and FOSTA were being debated, a lot of people I know and respect yawned. It's perfectly fair to trash this proposal now and say, "Don't panic. Business as usual." But at some point, "business as usual" just may not be an option. I've been in this business for a while, and I wouldn't describe what's happening right now as "usual."

 

PK did a very good job of taking the other side of this debate, and I think he hit on a key point: demand. What if most consumers run for cover? That's exactly what the people who dished out FOSTA are probably hoping for, by trying to cut off supply. What if demand plummets? You think escorts desperate to pay the rent are going to raise their rates? Come on!

 

The "business as usual" mindset actually sort of goes to what Zachary was arguing - that clients won't go away, and demand won't be as "elastic" as some people think or hope. (Sorry, had to throw something in about rubbers in, I guess.)

 

Like I said, I think this is the debate we should have been having a year or two or three ago. Right now partly we just have to wait and see what law enforcement does, and how the internet and "the market" responds. But I wouldn't assume we can count on "business as usual."

[+ FreshFluff]

The only problem with what you are saying is this: is "business as usual" even an option? I don't think we know. But at least some people are saying and feeling that we're all like that band on the Titanic. Which is why I agree with Eric. Let's not panic. I think these kinds of thoughtful debates are exactly what needs to happen. Lots and lots of them.

 

I'd also suggest maybe we should be asking whether "business as usual" is the problem, in this sense. When Rentboy was shuttered, I think the reaction could be characterized this way. "Don't panic. There's plenty of other websites. Business as usual." When SESTA and FOSTA were being debated, a lot of people I know and respect yawned. It's perfectly fair to trash this proposal now and say, "Don't panic. Business as usual." But at some point, "business as usual" just may not be an option. I've been in this business for a while, and I wouldn't describe what's happening right now as "usual."

 

PK did a very good job of taking the other side of this debate, and I think he hit on a key point: demand. What if most consumers run for cover? That's exactly what the people who dished out FOSTA are probably hoping for, by trying to cut off supply. What if demand plummets? You think escorts desperate to pay the rent are going to raise their rates? Come on!

 

The "business as usual" mindset actually sort of goes to what Zachary was arguing - that clients won't go away, and demand won't be as "elastic" as some people think or hope. (Sorry, had to throw something in about rubbers in, I guess.)

 

Like I said, I think this is the debate we should have been having a year or two or three ago. Right now partly we just have to wait and see what law enforcement does, and how the internet and "the market" responds. But I wouldn't assume we can count on "business as usual."

 

Stevenkesslar, your question appears to be "Will demand plummet as a result of the new legal regime (SESTA/FOSTA)?" You argue that demand might hold up.

 

ZP was arguing something different: That demand is inelastic with respect to price: i.e. escorts can raise their prices to compensate for the increased risk without decreasing their income.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Stevenkesslar, your question appears to be "Will demand plummet as a result of the new legal regime (SESTA/FOSTA)?" You argue that demand might hold up.

 

ZP was arguing something different: That demand is inelastic with respect to price: i.e. escorts can raise their prices to compensate for the increased risk without decreasing their income.

 

I know I can sound like a know it all, so let me say it loud and clear: I AM TOTALLY FUCKING IGNORANT! I don't really have a clue what's going to happen, and I don't think any of us do. Which is partly my point. I think we should at least be trying to steer, not react.

 

I've avoided trying to speak for Zachary or Blake, and I'm certainly not going to start now. I took what they said somewhat differently. What I took them to mean - in my own words - is that there's a "less is more" option available to at least some escorts, who can charge higher rates to fewer regulars. I assume Zachary isn't just making up his understanding of his own business, even though he's gotten a lot of shit for it.

 

You could think of it as the Donald Trump rule, to go to the absurd extreme. $130,000 was not too high a price to pay for discretion, in his case. And that was just for somebody to keep her mouth shut - after she spanked him, or whatever you care to believe she did. Of course, not everybody is Donald Trump. Thank God for that!

 

Beyond that, I may be ignorant, but I'm not stupid. I knew I was sort of aligning myself with a proposal that was going to get shit all over. And, no, I'm not into scat. I like debate, and this has been interesting. So if this were just a random debate about economy theory, I'd go back to my college econ class. Of course demand is usually elastic. If prices go up, demand will likely go down. There are exceptions. Your "cartel" point was a good one. I'd argue Congress just did an excellent job of creating a "cartel-ish" artificial constraint on supply, where higher end clients might gravitate toward higher end escorts for safety's sake. Which is the exact opposite of the point I tried to make about decriminalizing in Germany. That increased supply, by giving consumers access to any lower-end Ukrainian "girl" they wanted. (With all due respect to the women of Ukraine).

 

I'm really not interested in debating economic theory for the purpose of debate, though. I hope that's clear. So I'll repeat my main point: we ought to be thinking about how to resist, and what we actually want. If not this, what then?

[+ Tarte Gogo]

So I'll repeat my main point: we ought to be thinking about how to resist, and what we actually want.

1. Don’t we already know what we want? We want decriminalisation, right? Anyone disagrees with that?

Maybe we disagree on how to get there, but I think we all agree on the goal.

2. We already all are thinking on how to resist. I get PMs and texts from people who don’t necessarily contribute here, proving to me that there are many people actively thinking about this.

 

Here is my thinking: we should use the methods recently used by the gay community to achieve their goals.

 

1. Get organised and visible, the way gay liberty groups got organised. Visible is the hardest part as usual.

We should start getting some couples interviewed on TV to explain that their right to have sex the way their want to, are being denied. The couples should be one client and one sex worker, always agreeing with each other, always on message, that they both want to be free to have sex, and that they both want money to be involved, and that the state is interfering with their sex lives, by making what they want to do consensually, illegal.

 

2. Use language as a persuasion tool.

When people wanted “gay marriage” to be legal, they progressed a bit using logical arguments, but not enough.

That is because straight people were imagining the gay sex when they were hearing this phrase. Icky. When we started using “marriage equality” instead, much more people started to agree to it. Because everyone is in favour of equality.

Is there an equivalent change of language, that we could make to advocate our rights, and that wouldn’t make monogamous people feel “icky” or jealous when they think about what we are doing?

[+ José Soplanucas]

1. Don’t we already know what we want? We want decriminalisation, right? Anyone disagrees with that?

Maybe we disagree on how to get there, but I think we all agree on the goal.

2. We already all are thinking on how to resist. I get PMs and texts from people who don’t necessarily contribute here, proving to me that there are many people actively thinking about this.

 

Here is my thinking: we should use the methods recently used by the gay community to achieve their goals.

 

1. Get organised and visible, the way gay liberty groups got organised. Visible is the hardest part as usual.

We should start getting some couples interviewed on TV to explain that their right to have sex the way their want to, are being denied. The couples should be one client and one sex worker, always agreeing with each other, always on message, that they both want to be free to have sex, and that they both want money to be involved, and that the state is interfering with their sex lives, by making what they want to do consensually, illegal.

 

2. Use language as a persuasion tool.

When people wanted “gay marriage” to be legal, they progressed a bit using logical arguments, but not enough.

That is because straight people were imagining the gay sex when they were hearing this phrase. Icky. When we started using “marriage equality” instead, much more people started to agree to it. Because everyone is in favour of equality.

Is there an equivalent change of language, that we could make to advocate our rights, and that wouldn’t make monogamous people feel “icky” or jealous when they think about what we are doing?

 

Love it.

If I were able to put my face out there, I would start a campaign: "I am a John". I would get men of all kinds, celebrities included, to screen a three seconds face close up saying just "I am a John". I would also love an "I am a whore" campaign, but I think that one is even less plausible.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Love it.

If I were able to put my face out there, I would start a campaign: "I am a John". I would get men of all kinds, celebrities included, to screen a three seconds face close up saying just "I am a John". I would also love an "I am a whore" campaign, but I think that one is even less plausible.

Get 2 beautiful people on screen, saying they want to be that, but are not allowed by the state’s interference. I am worried that just a series of guys saying “i am a John” will look creepy, like they are admitting to a crime. Especially old ugly-faced blokes that look like me. Persuasion of the masses is important and if they have something they find unattractive to look at, while listening to the message, it will do the opposite of the intended effect, they will associate negatively with the message.

 

Also being on your own on screen, people will just think, “well i too want sex with beautiful people, but that is not how it works, you don’t just get to fuck who you want in life”, but 2 people saying “we want to have sex and the government is forbidding it” that should resonate with anyone who is in favour of sexual freedom.

[YoungAD]

Love it.

If I were able to put my face out there

 

Get 2 beautiful people on screen

 

This campaign has already failed.

[HotWhiteThirties]

Oy vey.

 

This may be a mistake. I’m going to limit this comment to that of economics since I’m a nerd when it comes to that sort of thing and got an undergraduate degree in it. (Note I said undergraduate - not a Ph.D!! Ha!) That, and I have no need to be right and wish providers and clients the safest of successes - however they might be defined to them.

 

First - supply and demand is, of course, fundamental to economic theories. It’s basic enough for most folks to understand. If supply goes up and demand stays constant, then it should drive prices down because the number of purchasers of a product has not increased, but the availability of that product has increased. And, of course, the reverse is true.

 

What I see in this instance is not really a change in supply or demand, but instead a “constraint” upon the system or marketplace for connecting the provider(supply) with the consumer(demand). Sort of like if you suddenly closed down a stock exchange. The supply of stock is there and the potentialpurchasers of said stock are there but their vehicle (I.e organized exchange; their efficient way of connecting) is removed, negatively impacted, or is reduced in some way. They are left to connecting through their existing known relationships but have limited access to providers they have no current knowledge and/or connections with. Over time, though, they will develop ways to “find one another again.”

 

Now, if the passage and reaction to this law had happened more slowly, perhaps it could be argued that the market could have adjusted with large numbers of providers leaving the market to reduce supply, but basically this has happened relatively quickly, and I think it’s safe to assume that the supply of providers is relatively the same. I think it’s also safe to assume that the demand for providers has not changed.

 

So what has and/or will change? It’s the way in which providers and clients can easily connect and transact business through online platforms. Making it more difficult; reducing platforms and ease of contact has an impact on BOTH sides - I would argue equal impacts - it reduces opportunity for the provider and it impedes choices for the client. Therefore, I would expect prices to hold constant if it’s equal. This is at least until the marketplace finds a way to adapt - and I believe it will. How soon is hard to guess, but it will. In the meantime, I would expect providers to become more reliant on their “regulars” and those “regulars” will be potentially less distracted with other options in the meantime.

 

Anyhow, I could be wrong. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do think that the OP’s premise that demand will be going up is misled (or at least doesn’t acknowledge the factors mentioned here) unless the online portals used to connect providers and clients make up a small portion of the market, which I doubt.

 

Bottom line is I believe that the law places a constraint on the industry which has impacts on both sides of the supply/demand equation.

 

And this will hopefully be the extent of my contribution of another long-winded post on this thread. Thanks for indulging an Econ nerd if you even read to this point. Cheers and best wishes to all!

Edited April 10, 2018 by HotWhiteThirties