Does it bother you if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs?
- Thread starter General Gonad
- Start date
btyger said:
I was thinking about this last night and I came to the conclusion that even if he pays for it, the relationship risks being altered for the worse. For that reason, it is better to lay down hard rules for yourself and for your drivers if you're an owner. You should be protecting your assets, not screwing them.
I was also thinking that SL's recommendation is by far the most sensible from a business perspective. In any business, you need to have something that brings customers back.
My favorite cafe offers the same food as the one down the block but I like the fact that the waitresses are hot, they smile and know how to converse. In other words, I am willing to pay a little more for excellent service, which includes a smile when pouring my coffee.
Similarly, this is a service industry which is why hot ladies with bad attitudes typically fizzle out very quickly.
GG
B1G said:
I disagree with your first statement but that's just a matter of different opinions.
I totally agree with your other statements. An SP has all the right to refuse a client, or refuse to have sex with her boss.
If a boss tells an SP that she must have sex with him or suffer the consequences, that is just wrong. She has the option to quit and let others know about this scumbag, but I doubt she can seek redress in the courts. If a boss in coporate America (I would assume it is the same in Canada) tells a worker that she must have sex with him or suffer the consequences, it is definitely against the law and there are a number of legal revenues available to her. I am not saying that the law should give different protections to these two situations, but there is a difference.
btyger,
Do you think that an SP in this industry in her mind has a realistic choice as to whether or not she can refuse to have sex with her boss, paid or otherwise ? There has to be power issues going on in her thought process or just plain, "I need this job so I guess I going to have to do it with him".
It's not as if she can go to the Norme de Travail (Worker's Protection Agency) for sexual harassement.
Do you think that an SP in this industry in her mind has a realistic choice as to whether or not she can refuse to have sex with her boss, paid or otherwise ? There has to be power issues going on in her thought process or just plain, "I need this job so I guess I going to have to do it with him".
It's not as if she can go to the Norme de Travail (Worker's Protection Agency) for sexual harassement.
General Gonad said:
GG,
I think there are SPing jobs and there are other jobs. SPing is very different than most other jobs and you are more likely to run into this type of behavior, not that I condone this type of behavior.
The world is not black and white and there are many shades of gray. Murder is wrong and is punished by the law, but there are different categories of murder and the punishments are not the same.
Rex
Last edited:
btyger said:
In the case of rape, I totally agree that it makes no difference who did it or who the victim is.
This thread is not about rape. The title is not even about manipulation and power play by an agency owner to force (as in using his position of power) sex on his employees. It started on the subject of how you would feel- does it bother you- if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs.
GG holds the opinion that there should be no sex between an agency owner and his employees based on business reasons. I do not agree. It is ok to me if he pays for it, uses it as a legitimate employment screen, or they just enjoy doing it to each other.
No, it does not bother me a bit if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs. I may trust his recommendations and opinions even more because it is reliable first hand experience. If it is between consenual adults, it is nobody else's business.
Last edited:
chefplus & Rex Kramer,
So I guess you both think that an SP is totally & absolutlely free to refuse her boss' sexual request ?
Think again !
Perhaps you could take a moment to look at it from the lady's point instead.
There is no reason why or in what instance that an agency owner needs to sample anything himeself. Each agency has loyal, honest & trustworthy clients & a new girl starting, doesn't need to know who she's going to see, he's just a client as far as she's concerned & as a result of these few interactions with these said clients, there is enough information for the agency to run with. Furthermore, this can all be done prior to any announcement of any particular new girl hirings.
Gentlemen, stop being naive, as the only real reason why a male agency owner would sample his girls is because he knows he can.
So I guess you both think that an SP is totally & absolutlely free to refuse her boss' sexual request ?
Think again !
Perhaps you could take a moment to look at it from the lady's point instead.
There is no reason why or in what instance that an agency owner needs to sample anything himeself. Each agency has loyal, honest & trustworthy clients & a new girl starting, doesn't need to know who she's going to see, he's just a client as far as she's concerned & as a result of these few interactions with these said clients, there is enough information for the agency to run with. Furthermore, this can all be done prior to any announcement of any particular new girl hirings.
Gentlemen, stop being naive, as the only real reason why a male agency owner would sample his girls is because he knows he can.
SL,
You misunderstand my post. What I am saying is that the SP must be free to turn down the sexual request of her employer (and he should pay just the same as everyone else, unless SHE decides otherwise); and it is a request, not a command. If turning down the request is not allowed, then it is DEFINITELY unacceptable, as no one should be made to have sex against their will.....CONSENSUAL is the key word. I hope that clears it up.
You misunderstand my post. What I am saying is that the SP must be free to turn down the sexual request of her employer (and he should pay just the same as everyone else, unless SHE decides otherwise); and it is a request, not a command. If turning down the request is not allowed, then it is DEFINITELY unacceptable, as no one should be made to have sex against their will.....CONSENSUAL is the key word. I hope that clears it up.
Last edited:
Are you serious?
The SP blows 12 guys and swishes their jism from left to right and front to back in her mouth, then you come along the next naive appointment and start french kissing her etc.....and you're concerned if she sleeps with her boss?
What is wrong with you guys?
The SP blows 12 guys and swishes their jism from left to right and front to back in her mouth, then you come along the next naive appointment and start french kissing her etc.....and you're concerned if she sleeps with her boss?
What is wrong with you guys?
chefplus said:
I second that notion Chef.
This brings another thought... It is ashame that SPs don't have anyone to turn to when thier rights are violated.
As controversal as the 'legalisation of the escort buisness' might be, I guess this would be one positive argument for it.
chefplus,
I understood your point completely. I think it it's you that doesn't understand how it is, as you seemingly think that an SP can refuse or choose to not consent to have sex with an agency owner or driver & I'm saying that she is not free to do so. I think believing otherwise is naive. This is not an office, this is the sex industry.
I understood your point completely. I think it it's you that doesn't understand how it is, as you seemingly think that an SP can refuse or choose to not consent to have sex with an agency owner or driver & I'm saying that she is not free to do so. I think believing otherwise is naive. This is not an office, this is the sex industry.
StripperLover said:
Some confusion here...I'm not saying that she CAN refuse to have sex with the agency owner; I'm saying she SHOULD be free to refuse. That is why I used the word "must" in my original post. If she is not free to refuse it is totally wrong - I thought I was clear in my last post.
StripperLover said:
Stripper,
When you read a post, do you skip a line every other line?
We are saying that she should be able to refuse. (In a way she is. She can always go to another agency.)
And like I said in an earlier post, it would be one good reason for the legalisation of escorting. SP's would have protection from CNT. (Commission des Normes du Travail)
B1G & chefplus,
Seeing as his is NOT reality in this biz, this issue of what "should be" doesn't remotely come into question.
The bottom line is that the men who work in this industry can't keep their little friends where they belong.
But hold on they shouldn't mix buisness & pleasure but they do !
Seeing as his is NOT reality in this biz, this issue of what "should be" doesn't remotely come into question.
The bottom line is that the men who work in this industry can't keep their little friends where they belong.
But hold on they shouldn't mix buisness & pleasure but they do !
Similar threads
