Raise The Rate 2018 Proposal Letter

[+ stevenkesslar]

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

 

I'm not sure I do. I could post a library of stories about legalized prostitution in places like Germany that kind of make it sound like it's a great way to traffick Ukrainian women - just legally.

 

The folks who brought us FOSTA are not about to turn around 180 degrees and decriminalize. Some of them seem to think that a broad version of Prohibition makes sense. It's hard enough to fight all trafficking. let alone all prostitution and all websites. If you haven't read it yet, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's statement on his vote against FOSTA, which is on Daddy's main review page today, is excellent:

 

http://www.daddysreviews.com/news

 

Part of what has to happen now is what happened with what could be called the Porn Prohibition version of the Communications Decency Act in the 1990's. It has to be allowed to fail. Maybe FOSTA will be deemed unconstitutional in part or whole. Or maybe it just won't work very well. There will be lots of time to stir up an ongoing debate about how it's not working, and why it's not working, and what might make sense instead.

 

If decriminalization is a goal, the first question is: where? Generally prostitution has been a state and local issue. Probably the best thing would be to keep the Feds out of it. They certainly didn't just display their deep understanding of the issue.

 

I think FOSTA will likely gradually create a backlash that could build support for local decriminalization - in places like San Francisco, where you could also tie it to strong anti-trafficking measures. The equivalent of what's alleged to be happening in Germany would be if San Francisco decriminalized prostitution, but also allowed legal "sanctuary brothels" filled with lots of undocumented Mexican immigrants. That would cause a backlash, too. There have been decriminalization initiatives before that at least got in the ballpark of passing. So the first questions are: Where? And how?

 

There is at least one obvious model: decriminalizing pot. So far, it seems like the best all purpose argument is this: since we've now figured out we can't get rid of it, let's regulate it and tax it. Let's fight the worse stuff, like opioids. It's not a leap to say you could make the same distinction between tolerating consensual relationships with college-educated female escorts and cracking down on involuntary sex slavery with trafficked women. I think we've learned that just labeling all such women as criminals doesn't help.

 

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?

 

I don't think anyone knows, but survey after survey suggests that time is not on our side on this, like it is with same sex marriage. The younger you are, the more likely you are to support same sex marriage. That's mostly true for other "identity politics" issues - like trangendered members of the military. But it appears that the people who are most against prostitution, including decriminalization, are younger people - particularly younger women. My guess is that the way many think of it is "prostitution = sexism" or "prostitution = slavery."

 

The very notion of "identity politics" could be part of the answer. One word I know I like a lot is empowerment. And you are right that being visible is both one of the hardest things to do, and one of the most important things to do. So stories or interviews about how it empowers women to have escort websites that allow them to run their own businesses sends a better message. (There were some great stories like that about Gay escorts during the Rentboy fiasco).

 

Meanwhile, another message is that shutting down Craiglist disempowers a lot of "legitimate" people who used it to meet, date, or marry. And shutting down Backpage in and of itself could further disempower many trafficked women, by driving them into windowless brothers or bars or the dark web. That's all part of a message that could makes sense.

 

The huge flaw in my "identity politics" argument is that unlike being Gay or Black or transgender, with prostitution you can't say "I was born this way." I think people view it as a choice - and a bad choice. If there is a parallel, the closest I can think of is undocumented immigrants - starting with whether you call them "undocumented immigrants" you try to legitimize and help or "illegal aliens" you try to demonize and deport.

 

I won't repeat my whole post on TVPA in the politics section, but one trafficked woman talked about how her pimp wouldn't even let her have a cell phone or a Facebook page. That right there is a big clue that empowerment is an issue. Driving victims off the web and into windowless rooms where they don't have access to the internet or cell phones isn't really a good solution.

 

For right now I think the biggest challenge is figuring out how to magnify the message that FOSTA isn't working - and here's why and here's how. It's going to take a lot of time to get to what might work better, let alone build support for it. But going back to what the TVPA did well - empower women and kids who are victims of trafficking - that is a start, because DOJ itself says that led to a 360 % increased in convictions of traffickers.

 

I know one of the national LGBTQ activists who actually had a lot to do with the language change you described. She happens to be Straight herself. I actually had a twofer coming out with her, and the difference in her reactions was telling. She was one of the first people I came out to as Gay, and her reaction was almost celebratory. It is instinctual with her, I think, both as a liberal and as a Straight woman who was very good at expressing her complete openness to anyone who isn't Straight. Much later I came out to her as a male escort, and it actually really troubled her. I actually never found a good way to get around that. I think particularly for strong, feminist women it's a little bit like saying, "I'm for oppression."

 

Having said that, the Harvey Milk rule applies. At least on a personal level, when I've told people what I do and why, they eventually get it. Just like knowing someone who is Gay made a difference, knowing someone who is an escort or who hires them makes a difference. There are millions and millions and millions of people who hire escorts who are not assholes and traffickers. That right there is probably our most important pr tool. But I don't think we have a clue how to actually use it. We just let the cops demonize us, pretty much every time.

 

So now we do know the consequences of silence or near silence: FOSTA. My guess is we were mostly portrayed as Satan's warriors by law enforcement. Think that through. Because if I am right, it should scare you. Having just won their moral victory, law enforcement will now have the burden of proving that they were right, and we are in fact tools of Satan. So at the very least, we have to be very good at demonstrating that we are not Satan.

 

Hmm. Speaking of which ...................

 

 

I think law enforcement's best argument is also their Achilles heel. Essentially what they wanted is shiny new tools to rid the world of traffickers. Over time, I think what will emerge is that the tools don't work well, and their enforcement hasn't been what they promised. While they will take out low hanging fruit (Backpage) on the Web, which FOSTA was not required to do, they will also drive a lot trafficking to other places, where it will be no easier to find and prosecute. Meanwhile, they will have fucked up the Web for millions of "legitimate" users.

 

Since I've now completely redirected this from where the OP started, let me go back to Blake's initial post - if any of you remember it. You all did a fine job beating it to death. But forget about the higher rates, which you obviously don't like. Focus on the idea of hunkering down and thinking on "quality of life" and "peace of mind" and "safety," both as providers, and of clients of those providers. I like the intent behind that, a lot. Again, I view it as resistance.

 

The burden is now on law enforcement to prove FOSTA works. That means its kind of open season on "traffickers," however that is defined. That in itself would explain the motivation for shutting down Backpage before the law is even signed. So I like the intent of saying, "Let's get ahead of the curve as providers. Let's stay out of the way of this mess that is about to occur. And let's show what a better model could look like." That what I read into the idea. And I still love it.

 

If I run it through my own lens, I would not focus on rates. I think most everyone is agreeing that the market will determine rates, and we just don't know how that will work yet. You may not like the idea of "cartels," but there really ought to be serious discussion about the idea of local providers banding together, to figure out how to create something that is better than the mess law enforcement could create, left to their own resources. Which are now, thanks in part to our silence and submission, perhaps greater than ever before.

Edited April 11, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[+ Tarte Gogo]

let's regulate it and tax it.

I forgot to mention that, I was thinking about it, yes the message needs to include confirmation that 1. We support the effort against trafficking and 2. This effort could be financed by taxes on legal prostitution.

We also need to confirm we are happy for providers to pay income tax and for client to pay a sales tax on the service provided.

 

empowerment

That is a good one.

Might be our best shot actually.

[+ quoththeraven]

I didn't read all of Steve's post, but decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. Decriminalization is the absence/repeal of government regulation, including laws against prostitution. Laws against pimping, brothels and possibly street solicitation would presumably remain, although the wording of the pimping laws are problematic because they criminalize renting housing to sex workers and sex worker collectives. Great Britain and New Zealand have this.

 

Legalization affirmatively permits the exchange of sex for money, permits brothels and pimping, and regulates the conduct of business, including mandatory testing. The latter may sound good but it's a privacy nightmare. That's what exists in the Netherlands and Germany. It's exploitative, disempowers individual workers, and is ripe for sex trafficking and official corruption because the state is all up in sex work's business.

[MrMattBig]

This really could not have been said any better.

There is no change in supply and demand,but rather the enabling vehicle. Prices will neither go up or down in an overall sense. Rather, there will be experimentation sporadically accross the board to adjust for the added difficulty of connecting consumer with provider.

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!

[MrMattBig]

With that being said, if the added difficulty of connecting through advertising and back office type work results in more costs and time spent for escorts, prices will go up.

[HotWhiteThirties]

With that being said, if the added difficulty of connecting through advertising and back office type work results in more costs and time spent for escorts, prices will go up.

 

That, or providers will leave the market for lack of new customers and not enough regulars. For example, the method in which I came into hiring is using the internet for a variety of reasons - including discretion and ability to maintain a level of anonymity. Also, to research and make as safe a hire as possible (safe having more than one meaning). I will not be the guy who goes to a bar or cruises any place for a provider. So, I would be a new customer lost to a provider with whom I have never met. I will be left with those relationships I’ve already established and could conceivably pay a premium to them up to a point (which I think is part of what you’re getting at), but I would also hire less overall based on my current circumstances and budget. So I wouldn’t be adding extra dollars to the endeavor, just paying more for fewer engagements.

Edited April 10, 2018 by HotWhiteThirties

[Aaron_Bauder]

I’m with [uSER=11284]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.[/uSER]

[uSER=11284][/user]

 

Mmm, this may be a statement from a position of privilege. A lot of guys are really struggling right now, seemingly overnight, and really wondering if they're going be able to afford their rents in 20 days.

 

That may not be true of certain escorts who have always done well financially for various reasons, or who have a look that is popular anyway and thus have a bigger financial cushion or larger pool of regulars to pull from. If you're a member of of the less popular demographics when it comes to hiring, you may be quite bit more economically vulnerable. Staring homelessness in the face, all of a sudden, is not something to be taken lightly.

[YoungAD]

[uSER=11284][/user]

 

Mmm, this may be a statement from a position of privilege. A lot of guys are really struggling right now, seemingly overnight, and really wondering if they're going be able to afford their rents in 20 days.

 

That may not be true of certain escorts who have always done well financially for various reasons, or who have a look that is popular anyway and thus have a bigger financial cushion or larger pool of regulars to pull from. If you're a member of of the less popular demographics when it comes to hiring, you may be quite bit more economically vulnerable. Staring homelessness in the face, all of a sudden, is not something to be taken lightly.

 

I hardly think Eric's statement comes from a place of privilege. Anyone who is making $50 or more per hour (which is on the low end of the escort scale and is significantly higher than many degreed professionals such as nurses and teachers) and is still "struggling" is doing so because of issues that are likely self-generated.

[+ FreshFluff]

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!

 

As you say, he government is imposing conditions that make life tougher for market players to find each other. The result will be to reduce variety seeking behavior by customers. But I don't think we can say that the effect on both sides is "equal." It might be that consumers perceive a greater increase in risk as a result of the Nordic model, and as a result, the demand curve will shift more than the supply curve. Of course, we're all just guessing.

[+ peterhung85]

Intriguing notion indeed, however I am sure that this was geared more towards the female providers rather than men. I know that nothing prohibits from male providers to implement such tactic and at the end of the day it is about supply & demand.

 

Even if I decide to join this movement, I would never raise my rates for my regulars who have been "faithful" (pardon the pun) to me for the past 5-8 years and currently represent over 90% of my income. I just couldn't do that to them. Not on financial, moral or ethical grounds. I owe them a tremendous amount of gratitude!

 

While I don't necessarily agree with the exact amount of $100 because some who have charged $150 until now vs. $250 that extra $100 can't be applied properly to all (I still think that was more of a notion for female providers), I would consider joining the movement and agree with SOME points @BlakeBenz and @FTM Zachary Prince raised in the beginning of this topic. Raising rates would not really "cost me" mostly due to the fact that keeping my regulars is my #1 priority and I no longer actively solicit for new clientele (if it happens, great but not a priority anymore) and as a "veteran" in this industry (yet still young man) it is important to share our views and discuss concerns in an open forum like Daddy's.

 

...but the real question now is: Who is our union leader?

[+ WilliamM]

I was tempted twice to go way beyond my escort spending limit. Yes once, no the second time. I have less money than most of the people who hire. (I can tell by the comments in the Lounge.) Would I go beyond my spending limit again. Yes, certainly. But, it would have to be someone whom I have wanted to hire for a whole.

[Aaron_Bauder]

I hardly think Eric's statement comes from a place of privilege. Anyone who is making $50 or more per hour (which is on the low end of the escort scale and is significantly higher than many degreed professionals such as nurses and teachers) and is still "struggling" is doing so because of issues that are likely self-generated.

 

I think that's presumptuous. If you're an escort who, because of your look or demographic, are booking multiple clients a day, overnights regularly, and getting flown to and fro that is a privilege, all else being equal, and maybe you're a little better off in this crisis. Other escorts may only get 3-4 clients a week and have seen even that dry up. Just assuming that every escort is doing well financially, and that if they're not it's because they've personally done something wrong, is lacking in perspective.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Aaron_Bauder

[Mocha]

...but the real question now is: Who is our union leader?

 

No one, it’s the mother f-ing twilight zone right now. So insane it’s a goddamn shame

 

 

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?

 

Love it, but...you have to count it down and let em have it T style, like I would do:

 

1st off: he wasn't my boyfriend.

2nd of all: He may have thought he was my future fiance, but we now all know that he thought a lot of crazy things.

3rd of all: could you just delete that post, and I will delete this one?

4th of all: Let's let sleeping dogs lie, okay? Or should I say sleeping pit bulls?

5th of all: 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.

6th of all: It will do no good to resurrect his lies and bullshit.

7th of all: Thankfully, it's over.

8th of all: Please let's just hit delete, okay?

 

http://78.media.tumblr.com/e67d13a45356f851e81bd057b950421a/tumblr_n886ydf4Bd1r83v9wo5_250.gif

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mocha

[Mocha]

I think that's presumptuous. If you're an escort who, because of your look or demographic, are booking multiple clients a day, overnights regularly, and getting flown to and fro that is a privilege, all else being equal, and maybe you're a little better off in this crisis. Other escorts may only get 3-4 clients a week and have seen even that dry up. Just assuming that every escort is doing well financially, and that if they're not it's because they've personally done something wrong, is lacking in perspective.

 

EXACTLY. But that's what some people on the forum (not referring to the OP) can be so pigheaded about. When one does talk about business being slow, others want to talk some shit and say it's because the escort does or doesn't this, or that...namely how they participate on the forum.

 

America is a very competitive country, I'm realizing. Everything is a competition. You can be doing everything right, but still not be where you want to be, because so many people are doing the same shit you're doing. One of my clients wanted to give me a speech about how he's able to find guys like me who would want to date him without monetary expectations, but that he chooses me. So, for some reason I should feel entitled to do the same. Well guess what, I've got plenty of clients across the country too...so I said, F**k You.

 

I've had to retract my agreement on raising rates, only because it's not always about clients wanting to pay less. Sometimes you've got to do what you got to do. Plus, with lot of other things going on, we don't want to raise it on the basis of it seeming like a punishment or reliant on any other factors, unless it relates to the cost of doing business with them. I would raise my rates, because I spend a lot of money...and in some cases, if I charge too low, that money may never reach my account. Hotels, gas, ads, phone bills, etc. A one price minimum or model doesn't work for every sitch. I'm not going to turn my nose up at $250, even though I may have a penchant for $2,500.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mocha

[mike carey]

I no longer actively solicit for new clientele

*Sad face*

Yes, I know I left out the next bit: (if it happens, great but not a priority anymore).

[+ quoththeraven]

EXACTLY. But that's what some people on the forum (not referring to the OP) can be so pigheaded about. When one does talk about business being slow, others want to talk some shit and say it's because the escort does or doesn't this, or that...namely how they participate on the forum.

 

America is a very competitive country, I'm realizing. Everything is a competition. You can be doing everything right, but still not be where you want to be, because so many people are doing the same shit you're doing. One of my clients wanted to give me a speech about how he's able to find guys like me who would want to date him without monetary expectations, but that he chooses me. So, for some reason I should feel entitled to do the same. Well guess what, I've got plenty of clients across the country too...so I said, F**k You.

 

I've had to retract my agreement on raising rates, only because it's not always about clients wanting to pay less. Sometimes you've got to do what you got to do. Plus, with lot of other things going on, we don't want to raise it on the basis of it seeming like a punishment or reliant on any other factors, unless it relates to the cost of doing business with them. I would raise my rates, because I spend a lot of money...and in some cases, if I charge too low, that money may never reach my account. Hotels, gas, ads, phone bills, etc. A one price minimum or model doesn't work for every sitch. I'm not going to turn my nose up at $250, even though I may have a penchant for $2,500.

When business being slow is all one ever starts discussions about, it's not unreasonable for commenters to wonder why and think OP doesn't have a grasp on the business and is in the wrong line of work or is a complainer generally who can't roll with the punches or both.

 

Admitting that you vary rates based on monetary need suggests you are in this for survival rather than as a career, and it shows in your posts. All of that means your posting here to vent tends to hurt rather than help your marketing, but if you want to use the forum to vent rather than advance your business, so be it.

 

I admire your honesty and courage in continuing to post despite negative feedback, but I'm also of the opinion that you're in the wrong line of work.

[MiamiLooker]

Admitting that you vary rates based on monetary need suggests you are in this for survival rather than as a career, and it shows in your posts. All of that means your posting here to vent tends to hurt rather than help your marketing, but if you want to use the forum to vent rather than advance your business, so be it.

Do you think most clients care if an escort varies his rate as long as the escort is providing the agreed upon service?

[+ quoththeraven]

Do you think most clients care if an escort varies his rate as long as the escort is providing the agreed upon service?

Most clients don't know. Compromising rates based on need rather than some formula or principle (like reductions for longer hiring periods) looks unprofessional. It also leads to questions about who exactly is getting breaks and who isn't. Is there a premium paid by uglier/older/less attractive clients? That tends to break the trust that's necessary.

 

Also it's different when an escort decides to give a specific client a discount or other break than when an escort accepts a low-ball offer in order to pay the rent. The latter looks more like hustling than escorting.

[+ WilliamM]

Do you think most clients care if an escort varies his rate as long as the escort is providing the agreed upon service?

 

Yes.

[coriolis888]

Do you think most clients care if an escort varies his rate as long as the escort is providing the agreed upon service?

 

 

Of course, under most circumstances

[+ stevenkesslar]

That, or providers will leave the market for lack of new customers and not enough regulars. For example, the method in which I came into hiring is using the internet for a variety of reasons - including discretion and ability to maintain a level of anonymity. Also, to research and make as safe a hire as possible (safe having more than one meaning). I will not be the guy who goes to a bar or cruises any place for a provider....I will be left with those relationships I’ve already established and could conceivably pay a premium to them up to a point (which I think is part of what you’re getting at), but I would also hire less overall based on my current circumstances and budget.

 

Thank you for saying this, for several reasons. A huge chunk of consumers value discretion and privacy above just about anything else. And that's not about anything they do being illegal. For many, it's simply about being Gay. They are older, it was before we won the culture wars, and they don't want to be out. Or they are bisexual and married. That's one of the most valuable tools of law enforcement. The overt or implicit threat is we will out you, and make you look like a filthy creep.

 

That has several implications here.

 

One implication is - hate to say - you actually confirmed the OP's logic. For some providers and consumers a "less is more" approach could make lots of sense, where you drop out of the market - or the online market dumps you, because there is a holy war going on against national websites that create any type of consensual market for - egads! -sex. Bars or cruises (or colored handkerchiefs) are an obvious alternative, but not everyone wants to go back to the future. So, to piggyback your word, the government just created a supply shock, and in that environment some providers and consumers might decide there is a "premium" on certain things - like discretion and anonymity. That's their business, if they choose.

 

When I read the OP's post, it was clear - he made it clear - that this originated from the female side of the market, which is most of the market. Women (and children) are the ones the cops and advocates will hold up as victims. Female escorts always have and always will be the lead players in the escort community in any political organizing, like past efforts to decriminalize or future efforts to fight FOSTA. (That's basically true for anything. If you want to organize for same sex marriage, the stereotype was that you should organize lesbians).

 

The "Gay" part of the equation is significant here. For some people it means doubling down on the stigma of it all. They want their relationships with Gay escorts to be discreet. That's both because of the Gay part, and the escort part. Other Gay consumers are perfectly happy to dive in the pool publicly with escorts - naked even. If you don't believe me, I promise to take pictures of it this weekend.

 

That has organizing implications. This isn't a thread primarily about organizing, but I keep running all this through both my entrepreneur filter, and my organizer filter. I bring it up because this gives us a way to fight FOSTA that the female escort community doesn't have. As soon as you say Gay - at least to a liberal Democrat - you are now considered to be a minority deserving of compassion and protection, not a creep. So while it's important to understand that many people reading this would have no interest in saying a peep in public about their relationships with Gay escorts, it's also realistic to think others would be willing to, if they thought it might make a difference.

 

Escorting is built around local markets. There's a reason why when you go to any website like Backpage or Craiglist the first thing you do is click on a local market area. That right there is an empowerment tool for us, I think.

 

When I started escorting in Portland there was - and from what I can see there still is - a relatively small local market of escorts. I knew most other providers anyways, in several cases before I became a provider. FOSTA puts a premium on this way of thinking. I posted the DOJ letter earlier in this thread. It as much as says that if you want to fly under the FOSTA radar and not end up in the net, get a cell phone and use it. Avoid national websites. I think one impact it will have is put an emphasis back on local markets. And, sorry, traffickers will be all over Facebook and other websites, and so will escorts. Twitter is already banning accounts that sound too much like you're selling something you shouldn't be selling. People will figure out how to work around that. This will be like Prohibition. We'll play endless whack a mole, with all kinds of broad collateral damage to the Web and freedom of speech. I think that will gradually undercut public support for a misguided holy war.

 

Meanwhile, we ought to be thinking about how to use local markets to our advantage, both as providers and consumers. That was part of the spirit of the OP's proposal that I very much liked, even though it was not a unifying way to say it.

 

...but the real question now is: Who is our union leader?

 

That's easy. Nobody.

 

The word I like for escorts is entrepreneurs. Most ones I know tend to be most concerned about running a small personal service business. It does not lend itself to organizing. So it makes sense to me that discussions about resisting FOSTA should play to the strengths of escorts, by first and foremost building around escorts' natural entrepreneurial skills. (The OP's proposal was a clear attempt to do that, like it or not). Part of my argument is that escorts and providers can use local markets to, at the very least, ride out the storm. At best, they can use them to undermine a misguided law. Note that the OP started out by talking about the Houston market. That makes sense to me. What happens in Houston should probably be different than what happens in San Francisco or Palm Springs , where maybe at some point opening a public debate about decriminalization makes sense.

 

We should be thinking about how to build various kinds of economic and political fortresses, locally. Time to put our thinking caps on. (Sorry, I know y'all prefer being naked. Just deal with it, okay?)

 

Here's another thing about local markets. A different way of saying that we are organized in local markets is saying we are organized in almost every Congressional district of the US. When it comes to FOSTA, that matters a lot. In my lifetime I'm met with lots and lots of elected officials, and also with my share of erected officials. Most escorts I know are more likely to have met a public official as an escort in private than as a citizen or advocate in public. So in that sense I know I'm a bit of a freak. But we are actually organized in the same way cops are. And my guess is that we actually outnumber cops - especially if "us" means both providers and consumers. But cops are very good at intimidating us, and we generally let them do it.

 

So there are other elements about local markets here that just make sense to me, that we ought to be thinking about. One of the main opponents of FOSTA, who I won't name because these are all searchable data bases, single-handedly helped me get a $200,000 grant for a project I organized a few decades ago. I organized a meeting in a church in which hundreds of people applauded while he announced a program to help them. One of his Congressional colleagues was also in that packed church, not as an elected official but as one of the advocates, who I'd organized to be there. So the idea of sitting down with these people to talk about the local implications of this misguided law in their state or district doesn't bother me at all. It makes total sense. Granted, it would be weird to now be addressing them as an escort. But it would also be fun. And I'd only want to do it if someone else in the room was from the ACLU, who talked about freedom of speech, and someone else in the room was from an LGBTQ organization, who talked about how Gay men who use these websites are not sex traffickers. They are your constituents, and they vote for you.

 

That's a form of cartel that I could see making a big difference, and that I'd very much like to be a part of - in Portland, or anywhere.

 

Back to where I started, HotWhiteThirties is absolutely right that discretion and privacy is a premium, and that is a reality anything we do should be grounded in. We can use that to our advantage as well, I think. I think most politicians know that most people don't want to actually get involved in politics. So if you go have an honest discussion with them about how an important part of your constituency doesn't much like this law, and thinks it will do more harm than good, they kind of figure out without actually having to be told that it could cost them either votes or campaign contributions, or both, and they tend to listen and at least take you seriously.

Edited April 11, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[+ stevenkesslar]

No one, it’s the mother f-ing twilight zone right now. So insane it’s a goddamn shame

 

 

 

 

Love it, but...you have to count it down and let em have it T style, like I would do:

 

1st off: he wasn't my boyfriend.

2nd of all: He may have thought he was my future fiance, but we now all know that he thought a lot of crazy things.

3rd of all: could you just delete that post, and I will delete this one?

4th of all: Let's let sleeping dogs lie, okay? Or should I say sleeping pit bulls?

5th of all: 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.

6th of all: It will do no good to resurrect his lies and bullshit.

7th of all: Thankfully, it's over.

8th of all: Please let's just hit delete, okay?

 

http://78.media.tumblr.com/e67d13a45356f851e81bd057b950421a/tumblr_n886ydf4Bd1r83v9wo5_250.gif

 

If they make a Broadway musical of it, I'll consult. As long as I get a share of the box office.

 

And I suppose your agenda is you want to be the first Black escort to win a Tony for Best Musical Score. I'm up for that.

 

Next thing you know we'll be celebrity escorts competing on Dancing With The Stars. That could actually be just the ticket to open hearts and minds on this topic.

Edited April 11, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[MiamiLooker]

Of course, under most circumstances

If you're hiring an escort from his Rentmen ad, how would you know if his rate has changed since rates aren't published? If you contacted an escort you'd hired before, and he told you his rate was $50 less than before, why would that make a difference to you (assuming you were contacting him to hire at the previous rate) as long as he provides the agreed upon service?

[+ peterhung85]

Thank you for saying this, for several reasons. A huge chunk of consumers value discretion and privacy above just about anything else. And that's not about anything they do being illegal. For many, it's simply about being Gay. They are older, it was before we won the culture wars, and they don't want to be out. Or they are bisexual and married. That's one of the most valuable tools of law enforcement. The overt or implicit threat is we will out you, and make you look like a filthy creep.

 

That has several implications here.

 

One implication is - hate to say - you actually confirmed the OP's logic. For some providers and consumers a "less is more" approach could make lots of sense, where you drop out of the market - or the online market dumps you, because there is a holy war going on against national websites that create any type of consensual market for - egads! -sex. Bars or cruises (or colored handkerchiefs) are an obvious alternative, but not everyone wants to go back to the future. So, to piggyback your word, the government just created a supply shock, and in that environment some providers and consumers might decide there is a "premium" on certain things - like discretion and anonymity. That's their business, if they choose.

 

When I read the OP's post, it was clear - he made it clear - that this originated from the female side of the market, which is most of the market. Women (and children) are the ones the cops and advocates will hold up as victims. Female escorts always have and always will be the lead players in the escort community in any political organizing, like past efforts to decriminalize or future efforts to fight FOSTA. (That's basically true for anything. If you want to organize for same sex marriage, the stereotype was that you should organize lesbians).

 

The "Gay" part of the equation is significant here. For some people it means doubling down on the stigma of it all. They want their relationships with Gay escorts to be discreet. That's both because of the Gay part, and the escort part. Other Gay consumers are perfectly happy to dive in the pool publicly with escorts - naked even. If you don't believe me, I promise to take pictures of it this weekend.

 

That has organizing implications. This isn't a thread primarily about organizing, but I keep running all this through both my entrepreneur filter, and my organizer filter. I bring it up because this gives us a way to fight FOSTA that the female escort community doesn't have. As soon as you say Gay - at least to a liberal Democrat - you are now considered to be a minority deserving of compassion and protection, not a creep. So while it's important to understand that many people reading this would have no interest in saying a peep in public about their relationships with Gay escorts, it's also realistic to think others would be willing to, if they thought it might make a difference.

 

Escorting is built around local markets. There's a reason why when you go to any website like Backpage or Craiglist the first thing you do is click on a local market area. That right there is an empowerment tool for us, I think.

 

When I started escorting in Portland there was - and from what I can see there still is - a relatively small local market of escorts. I knew most other providers anyways, in several cases before I became a provider. FOSTA puts a premium on this way of thinking. I posted the DOJ letter earlier in this thread. It as much as says that if you want to fly under the FOSTA radar and not end up in the net, get a cell phone and use it. Avoid national websites. I think one impact it will have is put an emphasis back on local markets. And, sorry, traffickers will be all over Facebook and other websites, and so will escorts. Twitter is already banning accounts that sound too much like you're selling something you shouldn't be selling. People will figure out how to work around that. This will be like Prohibition. We'll play endless whack a mole, with all kinds of broad collateral damage to the Web and freedom of speech. I think that will gradually undercut public support for a misguided holy war.

 

Meanwhile, we ought to be thinking about how to use local markets to our advantage, both as providers and consumers. That was part of the spirit of the OP's proposal that I very much liked, even though it was not a unifying way to say it.

 

 

 

That's easy. Nobody.

 

The word I like for escorts is entrepreneurs. Most ones I know tend to be most concerned about running a small personal service business. It does not lend itself to organizing. So it makes sense to me that discussions about resisting FOSTA should play to the strengths of escorts, by first and foremost building around escorts' natural entrepreneurial skills. (The OP's proposal was a clear attempt to do that, like it or not). Part of my argument is that escorts and providers can use local markets to, at the very least, ride out the storm. At best, they can use them to undermine a misguided law. Note that the OP started out by talking about the Houston market. That makes sense to me. What happens in Houston should probably be different than what happens in San Francisco or Palm Springs , where maybe at some point opening a public debate about decriminalization makes sense.

 

We should be thinking about how to build various kinds of economic and political fortresses, locally. Time to put our thinking caps on. (Sorry, I know y'all prefer being naked. Just deal with it, okay?)

 

Here's another thing about local markets. A different way of saying that we are organized in local markets is saying we are organized in almost every Congressional district of the US. When it comes to FOSTA, that matters a lot. In my lifetime I'm met with lots and lots of elected officials, and also with my share of erected officials. Most escorts I know are more likely to have met a public official as an escort in private than as a citizen or advocate in public. So in that sense I know I'm a bit of a freak. But we are actually organized in the same way cops are. And my guess is that we actually outnumber cops - especially if "us" means both providers and consumers. But cops are very good at intimidating us, and we generally let them do it.

 

So there are other elements about local markets here that just make sense to me, that we ought to be thinking about. One of the main opponents of FOSTA, who I won't name because these are all searchable data bases, single-handedly helped me get a $200,000 grant for a project I organized a few decades ago. I organized a meeting in a church in which hundreds of people applauded while he announced a program to help them. One of his Congressional colleagues was also in that packed church, not as an elected official but as one of the advocates, who I'd organized to be there. So the idea of sitting down with these people to talk about the local implications of this misguided law in their state or district doesn't bother me at all. It makes total sense. Granted, it would be weird to now be addressing them as an escort. But it would also be fun. And I'd only want to do it if someone else in the room was from the ACLU, who talked about freedom of speech, and someone else in the room was from an LGBTQ organization, who talked about how Gay men who use these websites are not sex traffickers. They are your constituents, and they vote for you.

 

That's a form of cartel that I could see making a big difference, and that I'd very much like to be a part of - in Portland, or anywhere.

 

Back to where I started, HotWhiteThirties is absolutely right that discretion and privacy is a premium, and that is a reality anything we do should be grounded in. We can use that to our advantage as well, I think. I think most politicians know that most people don't want to actually get involved in politics. So if you go have an honest discussion with them about how an important part of your constituency doesn't much like this law, and thinks it will do more harm than good, they kind of figure out without actually having to be told that it could cost them either votes or campaign contributions, or both, and they tend to listen and at least take you seriously.

I love how you get into a super serious discussion when it was clearly intended to be a joke :D:D

[+ peterhung85]

*Sad face*

Yes, I know I left out the next bit: (if it happens, great but not a priority anymore).

Well, acquiring new clientele has not been my priority for the past year or so, but that does not mean that I don't welcome them with open arms (and legs ).