Does it bother you if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs?
- Thread starter General Gonad
- Start date
I'm sure that many female office workers have no second thoughts about fucking their way to the top. And more than one boss in the "normal" business world has put the moves on an employee. Why should the sex business be any different. As long as the agency owner isn't pressuring the girl to have sex I don't see any problem. In the case that he is, well there are plenty of agencies in town to work for.
By the way, I also voted "indifferent". If the question was phrased differently, such as"...if an agency owner forces his SPs to provide him with free sex." My answer would not be the same.
EB,
To that I say BS, those who practice such actions do so because they know that they can.
A good agency owner will have a new girl seen by a few reliable & honest clients so as to get as fair and objective a verbal review of her services, etc.
To that I say BS, those who practice such actions do so because they know that they can.
A good agency owner will have a new girl seen by a few reliable & honest clients so as to get as fair and objective a verbal review of her services, etc.
I voted "Totally indifferent" it is their business. The concern I have is if an owner falsely promotes an SP to sleep with her. Then the problem is false advertising not sleeping around.
A27
A27
Techman,
In the sex industry, what are the alternatives to a sex worker getting ahead , (all things being equal) preferential treatment, a better deal for herself, closer to the top of the list at beig recommended to a calling client ?
In an office, yes there are bosses who cross the sexual divide or attempt to, but a woman in such a setting has other alternatives to get herself ahead.
Yes a sex woker can go to work for another (male owned) agency but has it occured to you that they may all practice the same business ethics?
In the sex industry, what are the alternatives to a sex worker getting ahead , (all things being equal) preferential treatment, a better deal for herself, closer to the top of the list at beig recommended to a calling client ?
In an office, yes there are bosses who cross the sexual divide or attempt to, but a woman in such a setting has other alternatives to get herself ahead.
Yes a sex woker can go to work for another (male owned) agency but has it occured to you that they may all practice the same business ethics?
SL, I do see your point. The only advancement in the escort business would really to be in charge of your own agency or to have the agency charge premium rates for your services.
I'm sure that some agency owners or bookers may work this way. In that case the lady can go indy. In fact I'm surprised that some girls don't just get together and hire someone to handle the bookings for them. It doesn't take a genius to answer the phones and check a schedule to see who is busy/available.
I'm sure that some agency owners or bookers may work this way. In that case the lady can go indy. In fact I'm surprised that some girls don't just get together and hire someone to handle the bookings for them. It doesn't take a genius to answer the phones and check a schedule to see who is busy/available.
Techman said:
Techman,
This practice is much more common in the USA and specifically New York City where busy independent SPs share professional bookers.
We have had only about 300 threads about GFE vs. non GFE service and agency owners using deceptive advertising practices in the labelling of SP services as "GFE." I guess you missed those. So an owner who does nothing to determine what the service level is and then advertises what the service level is, is acting in a scrupulous and ethical manner?
I NEVER took a position on this issue, I merely stated that the issue was arguable either way. Apparently nobody reads my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the issue is irrelevant, in reality. GG should be asking what male agency owner doesn't.......as has already been mentioned.
I NEVER took a position on this issue, I merely stated that the issue was arguable either way. Apparently nobody reads my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the issue is irrelevant, in reality. GG should be asking what male agency owner doesn't.......as has already been mentioned.
Last edited:
EB,
Answer is obvious.
Don't just limit that question to agency owners, the male drivers are also involved.
Answer is obvious.
Don't just limit that question to agency owners, the male drivers are also involved.
If I owned a strip club I would ask new girls to the business to audition to ensure that they could indeed strip in front of strangers. When it comes to experienced girls it isn't necessary. If an agency owner is hiring a new girl he has to have a way to make sure she can provide the services advertised. Whether it's by sending her to a regular, trusted, customer or by trying her out himself, it has to be done. Where it could become a problem is if her services are expected to be provided to him on request.
Why take a position on an issue that in reality is irrelevant?
This is only a theoretical discussion piece. Embedded in the original poll question is a false assumption: that some male agency owners sleep with their SPs, while others do not. There is no reason to take any position that means anything on an issue that does not exist in reality.
If the assumption on which this poll was based is valid, then it would be arguable as to whether or not it is a justifiable business decision to attempt to sleep with one's SPs (NOTE FOR THE POOR READERS: I did not say "require"). I already laid out the arguments on that. In fact I did not make up those arguments. I have read them on this and other Boards, and discussed them in conjunction with the realities of running an escort agency with those in the business. They are arguments. They are not right or wrong, they are arguments. Like all arguments, they are not "winners" or "losers" unless they are juxtaposed in competition. That is what Courts are for. We can have such a thing as the MERB Hobbyist Disputes Resolution Court. We can appoint justices. Then we argue to those justices. Then one argument wins and one loses. My point is, I could win with either argument.
SL does make a valid point that an agency owner can simply designate a few trusted clients to make a decision on a girl's services, rather than sleep with her himself. The counterargument to that is any good business owner wants to make the most informed decision possible, and delegating the authority to make an informed decision ain't the most informed decision. Anyway, these are just arguments, and until a professionally trained mouth voices them in a live competition, none of them are winners or losers.
This is only a theoretical discussion piece. Embedded in the original poll question is a false assumption: that some male agency owners sleep with their SPs, while others do not. There is no reason to take any position that means anything on an issue that does not exist in reality.
If the assumption on which this poll was based is valid, then it would be arguable as to whether or not it is a justifiable business decision to attempt to sleep with one's SPs (NOTE FOR THE POOR READERS: I did not say "require"). I already laid out the arguments on that. In fact I did not make up those arguments. I have read them on this and other Boards, and discussed them in conjunction with the realities of running an escort agency with those in the business. They are arguments. They are not right or wrong, they are arguments. Like all arguments, they are not "winners" or "losers" unless they are juxtaposed in competition. That is what Courts are for. We can have such a thing as the MERB Hobbyist Disputes Resolution Court. We can appoint justices. Then we argue to those justices. Then one argument wins and one loses. My point is, I could win with either argument.
SL does make a valid point that an agency owner can simply designate a few trusted clients to make a decision on a girl's services, rather than sleep with her himself. The counterargument to that is any good business owner wants to make the most informed decision possible, and delegating the authority to make an informed decision ain't the most informed decision. Anyway, these are just arguments, and until a professionally trained mouth voices them in a live competition, none of them are winners or losers.
Last edited:
To be indifferent is to condone this behavior...
EB,
I think SL`s point is not only valid but it is the only ethical thing that an agency owner can do. "But GG, who gives a fuck about ethics? This is a scummy business, we all know that. It`s all part of the price you have to pay to become an SP" Well, I care about ethics. If we all agree that you shouldn`t abuse women or disrespect SPs, then you would care too.
A lot of you have based your arguments on the fact that an owner needs to "try out the goods." But these aren`t running shoes we`re talking about, it is women that are being paid to have sex. You are commodifying these SPs and lumping them in with consumer goods that have no feelings or souls. Is it right for a porno director to tell an aspiring porn actress "you know honey if you suck my cock well I will help you get far in this biz."
Of course not, and don`t tell me it is.
It is completely and utterly unethical and unscrupulous for a male agency owner to sleep with his SPs under any circumstance. It is even worse for the drivers to do this. To think otherwise is to delude yourselves that it`s all part of "testing the merchandise."
This is why I think SL`s proposition is the only right thing to do. You can introduce a new SP to a few well established clients of your agency. You should as an owner take the time to discuss with her some key differences between GFE and non-GFE services (but again this for me is always YMMV for each and every client). But to tell her I am going to test you out for myself is beyond me and I do not buy the counterargument that EB has mentioned above (The counterargument to that is any good business owner wants to make the most informed decision possible, and delegating the authority to make an informed decision ain`t the most informed decision.)
SL mentioned another important thing. How many of you answered based on your client`s perspective? How many of you empathize with a terrified young lady who needs to work to make ends meet? If you were in her shoes and the owner told you "it`s all just part of the business, relax honey, I`ll be gentle," how would you feel? Call it subtle coercion, call it whatever you want, I call it scummy, disgusting and unethical. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. To be indifferent is to close your eyes and condone this behavior.
Finally, I believe that an owner can fall in love with an SP. They have every right to their privacy but I do question an owner that cares about his lady and lets her continue this line of work. Again, it`s beyond me.
GG
P.S. for those who are interested, here are the results from Terb and Perb:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116232
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46398&page=2
EagerBeaver said:
EB,
I think SL`s point is not only valid but it is the only ethical thing that an agency owner can do. "But GG, who gives a fuck about ethics? This is a scummy business, we all know that. It`s all part of the price you have to pay to become an SP" Well, I care about ethics. If we all agree that you shouldn`t abuse women or disrespect SPs, then you would care too.
A lot of you have based your arguments on the fact that an owner needs to "try out the goods." But these aren`t running shoes we`re talking about, it is women that are being paid to have sex. You are commodifying these SPs and lumping them in with consumer goods that have no feelings or souls. Is it right for a porno director to tell an aspiring porn actress "you know honey if you suck my cock well I will help you get far in this biz."
Of course not, and don`t tell me it is. It is completely and utterly unethical and unscrupulous for a male agency owner to sleep with his SPs under any circumstance. It is even worse for the drivers to do this. To think otherwise is to delude yourselves that it`s all part of "testing the merchandise."
This is why I think SL`s proposition is the only right thing to do. You can introduce a new SP to a few well established clients of your agency. You should as an owner take the time to discuss with her some key differences between GFE and non-GFE services (but again this for me is always YMMV for each and every client). But to tell her I am going to test you out for myself is beyond me and I do not buy the counterargument that EB has mentioned above (The counterargument to that is any good business owner wants to make the most informed decision possible, and delegating the authority to make an informed decision ain`t the most informed decision.)
SL mentioned another important thing. How many of you answered based on your client`s perspective? How many of you empathize with a terrified young lady who needs to work to make ends meet? If you were in her shoes and the owner told you "it`s all just part of the business, relax honey, I`ll be gentle," how would you feel? Call it subtle coercion, call it whatever you want, I call it scummy, disgusting and unethical. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. To be indifferent is to close your eyes and condone this behavior.
Finally, I believe that an owner can fall in love with an SP.
They have every right to their privacy but I do question an owner that cares about his lady and lets her continue this line of work. Again, it`s beyond me. GG
P.S. for those who are interested, here are the results from Terb and Perb:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116232
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46398&page=2
Last edited:
oliver kloseoff said:
Oli,
I am so disappointed with you.
You know I am the king of that job.
PS Not many agency operators are participating in this thread!!!
Must be a mea culpa.
Board Stiff said:
BS,
If any male agency owner in Montreal who has been in business for over a year comes in this thread and publicly declares that he has NEVER slept with any lady who worked for him as an SP, then I will stand on my head, nude, in the intersection of St. Catherine and University until the cops take me down, and then I will hire you as my bail bondsman.
EagerBeaver said:
LOL, I will join you! By the way, did you have a chance to read my reply above?
Trying Out The Goods
As I've stated above, if a male woman's clothing retail exec needed to "Try out the Goods" he'd have to be a cross dresser I presume ? How else would he know how the garment feels on a body or perhaps he has to take the word of a few trusted women around him or in his employ.
The only reason needed for a male agency owner/driver is to exert his power over the very women that he employs or has power over & catch a freebie.
As I've stated above, if a male woman's clothing retail exec needed to "Try out the Goods" he'd have to be a cross dresser I presume ? How else would he know how the garment feels on a body or perhaps he has to take the word of a few trusted women around him or in his employ.
The only reason needed for a male agency owner/driver is to exert his power over the very women that he employs or has power over & catch a freebie.
General Gonad said:.... Is it right for a porno director to tell an aspiring porn actress "you know honey if you suck my cock well I will help you get far in this biz."
You are right here GG... this falls in the "Using one's position to force a sexual relation"
General Gonad said:....It is completely and utterly unethical and unscrupulous for a male agency owner to sleep with his SPs under any circumstance. It is even worse for the drivers to do this. To think otherwise is to delude yourselves that it's all part of "testing the merchandise."
.... You can introduce a new SP to a few well established clients of your agency.
Under any circumstance???... Even if the girl wants to. Let's face it these girls are open and it would not be completly impossible for them to want to sleep with thier boss. In this case it would be no worse then a secretary sleeping with her boss.
General Gonad said:
If she is terrified of having to have sex with someone... PLEASE by all means do everthing in your power to find her another job. DON'T send her to a hotel room to meet a complete stranger who intends to have sex with her!!!!!
Beers will be on me!!
Now this is something I would love to see, Eager Beaver and the General standing on their heads, nude at a busy intersection with Oliver eating popcorn ... The beers are on me if this wonderous occasion should ever take place (no camera promise)
Candy
Now this is something I would love to see, Eager Beaver and the General standing on their heads, nude at a busy intersection with Oliver eating popcorn ... The beers are on me if this wonderous occasion should ever take place (no camera promise)
Candy
EagerBeaver said:
B1G said:
B1G,
Office affairs are dumb and so is sleeping with your SPs. As for the fear factor, it goes back to empathizing with them. I think there are certain clients that are better than others for first time ladies who will undoubtedly all feel some fear.
GG
Similar threads
