Does it bother you if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs?
- Thread starter General Gonad
- Start date
Very interesting thread... I disappear for a few days and so much to read!
The idea that an owner needs to sleep with the girls in order to "test the merchandise" in order to properly market her is ridiculous. How she behaves with her boss is in all likely hood different than with clients. Asking clients if they were satisfied with her services after is much more effective.
IMHO, if an owner wants to sleep with one of his SPs, then he must pay her, and she must have the option to refuse with no ill consequences, otherwise it is just wrong on so many levels.
Yes there are SPs who "throw" themselves at their bosses in an attempt to get more and better clients. In this situation, the owner is better to just say no. WHY? Because when she is no longer the flavour of the month she will just be bitter and be more likely to steal clients.
...and that is my two cents!
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
The idea that an owner needs to sleep with the girls in order to "test the merchandise" in order to properly market her is ridiculous. How she behaves with her boss is in all likely hood different than with clients. Asking clients if they were satisfied with her services after is much more effective.
IMHO, if an owner wants to sleep with one of his SPs, then he must pay her, and she must have the option to refuse with no ill consequences, otherwise it is just wrong on so many levels.
Yes there are SPs who "throw" themselves at their bosses in an attempt to get more and better clients. In this situation, the owner is better to just say no. WHY? Because when she is no longer the flavour of the month she will just be bitter and be more likely to steal clients.
...and that is my two cents!
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
chefplus,
Consent, in this type of instance, means that all consenting adulting are on an equal footing before & after such a proposition is made.
Please tell me where is the equality between and agency owner and/or driver & an SP ?
Consent, in this type of instance, means that all consenting adulting are on an equal footing before & after such a proposition is made.
Please tell me where is the equality between and agency owner and/or driver & an SP ?
I second Ronnie with her post. Actually it is pretty much what my little unexplicite story was saying. A friend of mine was an escorts years ago. We talk about how much it as change since. And it did! Fortunately, it would not be given to everybody to be an agency owner these days ...
Equality
Equality does not exist in real life.Maybe in some philosophy class in an abstract form, equality may be discussed but even there the professor would have the last word once contributions are weighed.
Essentially in the situation outlined in this thread you have a very basic barter system where each party places a subjective variable value on what the other is offering.The only semblance of equality would be each party walking away thinking they got the better of the transaction.Otherwise the one with the last word or control has a distinct advantage from beginning to end.Whether the SP gets paid in cold hard cash or perceived value is one and the same.
StripperLover said:
Equality does not exist in real life.Maybe in some philosophy class in an abstract form, equality may be discussed but even there the professor would have the last word once contributions are weighed.
Essentially in the situation outlined in this thread you have a very basic barter system where each party places a subjective variable value on what the other is offering.The only semblance of equality would be each party walking away thinking they got the better of the transaction.Otherwise the one with the last word or control has a distinct advantage from beginning to end.Whether the SP gets paid in cold hard cash or perceived value is one and the same.
thier own business..
what happens between two adults is thier own business.if a boss a trying to take advantage thats a different story then but it quite happens in eveywhere I guess.The only reason I want to have my own company is to have my own secretary.
what happens between two adults is thier own business.if a boss a trying to take advantage thats a different story then but it quite happens in eveywhere I guess.The only reason I want to have my own company is to have my own secretary.
To me the issue of equality is somewhat irrelevant to the original poll question. The question was, "Does it bother you if an agency owner sleeps with his SPs?"
Of course, in any employer/employee situation, equality does not exist. It also goes without saying, as Ronnie has noted, that it is at a minimum imprudent for an agency owner to have sex with his SPs, for the reasons she has stated. It seems to me, however, that these issues go to the question, "should it bother an agency owner to sleep with his SPs?" That is a different question than the poll question.
The question is whether a hobbyist should care if the SP he is seeing had sex with another customer as opposed to the agency owner the prior night. And the overwhelming poll response has been that the hobbyist is totally indifferent.
Now if the poll question was, "is it ethical or appropriate for an agency owner to sleep with his SPs?", some of the questions resonating through this thread become more relevant. I am really surprised, however, that the analysis of this wholly different question has focused on the abuse of power and authority inherent in the employer/employee relationship. Nobody has really discussed the more difficult issue of sex not being motivated by power or authority, but rather by feelings of love and lust.
I have tried to put myself in the shoes of these agency owners and it would be very difficult to avoid and refuse these temptations. I consider myself fortunate that the women in my office are all older, homely, married women. These agency owners are all night surrounded by attractive young women dressed very sexily. It cannot be an easy thing to have a constant erection and not be able to do anything about it. I actually feel sorry for these guys because it is a horrible Catch 22 situation which they are in. It's not like being a clothing salesman. Clothing and other inanimate objects do not cause erections. There is no other business where a male employer is constantly surrounded by attractive young women who are paid to look sexy, except maybe the manager of a Hooters restaurant.
The bottom line is that this thread has gone in a different direction than the original poll question, which in the poll got the response that was warranted by the question.
Of course, in any employer/employee situation, equality does not exist. It also goes without saying, as Ronnie has noted, that it is at a minimum imprudent for an agency owner to have sex with his SPs, for the reasons she has stated. It seems to me, however, that these issues go to the question, "should it bother an agency owner to sleep with his SPs?" That is a different question than the poll question.
The question is whether a hobbyist should care if the SP he is seeing had sex with another customer as opposed to the agency owner the prior night. And the overwhelming poll response has been that the hobbyist is totally indifferent.
Now if the poll question was, "is it ethical or appropriate for an agency owner to sleep with his SPs?", some of the questions resonating through this thread become more relevant. I am really surprised, however, that the analysis of this wholly different question has focused on the abuse of power and authority inherent in the employer/employee relationship. Nobody has really discussed the more difficult issue of sex not being motivated by power or authority, but rather by feelings of love and lust.
I have tried to put myself in the shoes of these agency owners and it would be very difficult to avoid and refuse these temptations. I consider myself fortunate that the women in my office are all older, homely, married women. These agency owners are all night surrounded by attractive young women dressed very sexily. It cannot be an easy thing to have a constant erection and not be able to do anything about it. I actually feel sorry for these guys because it is a horrible Catch 22 situation which they are in. It's not like being a clothing salesman. Clothing and other inanimate objects do not cause erections. There is no other business where a male employer is constantly surrounded by attractive young women who are paid to look sexy, except maybe the manager of a Hooters restaurant.
The bottom line is that this thread has gone in a different direction than the original poll question, which in the poll got the response that was warranted by the question.
Last edited:
EagerBeaver said:
EB,
The original question was full of ethical undertones. Maybe I wasn't explicit but I did not feel that I had to be. For me, it doesn't bother me one ioda that an SP is sleeping with other clients but it isn't the same as sleeping with an agency owner. In fact, to equate sleeping with a client to sleeping with an owner is to seriously overlook the ethical implications of such actions.
As for the poll results, I am not going to judge the results because if I look at Terb and Perb, the results are closer. But it doesn't surprise me that many think it's no big deal.
EB, when you say " It cannot be an easy thing to have a constant erection and not be able to do anything about it," it all depends on your focus. Is it sex or is it money? The smart owners can get their fix elsewhere.
GG
GG,
You have put out a poll question and now you are attacking the results. It doesn't work that way. You have to live with the results.
I don't care about other polls on other Boards that I don't read. The results here speak for themselves. It is absurd that because this poll has not gone the way that you expected, that you now attack the results. The results are correct. It is what it is. You cannot now undo what you have done. If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have put out a poll question and now you are attacking the results. It doesn't work that way. You have to live with the results.
I don't care about other polls on other Boards that I don't read. The results here speak for themselves. It is absurd that because this poll has not gone the way that you expected, that you now attack the results. The results are correct. It is what it is. You cannot now undo what you have done. If you don't like the answer, then don't ask the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There he goes again!
EB,
I couldn't care less about the results or your constant attempts to discredit and belittle me. Even on your best day, you wouldn't come close to bothering me. And I didn't poll with the hopes that everyone would vote the way I wanted them to. This is your fantasy again.
Now, where exactly did you see me "attacking" the results?!?!?! I voted the way I thought was right and I couldn't care less about the results or your stance on this issue. In my mind, the minority was right on the way they voted because they realized there was an ethical dimension to my question. I didn't need to make it explicit, it's there.
As I already stated, SL had the best arguments by far. I enjoyed reading everyone's comments but I just disagree with the nonchalant views expressed by those that are totally indifferent, including your fence sitting argument. It is our right to respectfully disagree with each other.
I made an observation that if you look at the Terb and Perb polls which were issued the same day, it is hardly clear cut that the majority of the clients are totally indifferent on this issue. I purposely did the polls on all three sites to gauge other clients' views.
GG
EagerBeaver said:
EB,
I couldn't care less about the results or your constant attempts to discredit and belittle me. Even on your best day, you wouldn't come close to bothering me. And I didn't poll with the hopes that everyone would vote the way I wanted them to. This is your fantasy again.
Now, where exactly did you see me "attacking" the results?!?!?! I voted the way I thought was right and I couldn't care less about the results or your stance on this issue. In my mind, the minority was right on the way they voted because they realized there was an ethical dimension to my question. I didn't need to make it explicit, it's there.
As I already stated, SL had the best arguments by far. I enjoyed reading everyone's comments but I just disagree with the nonchalant views expressed by those that are totally indifferent, including your fence sitting argument. It is our right to respectfully disagree with each other.
I made an observation that if you look at the Terb and Perb polls which were issued the same day, it is hardly clear cut that the majority of the clients are totally indifferent on this issue. I purposely did the polls on all three sites to gauge other clients' views.
GG
Last edited:
General Gonad said:
Excuse me, but is it not an attack on the results of one's own poll to say that the results of the same polls on other Boards are closer to "being correct"? That's how I read this.
Last edited:
b_cup_lover said:
You are imputing an absolutely nonsensical meaning. If the other polls are close to the results here why bring them up?
General Gonad said:
You did not feel you had to be explicit because the first thing that 'popped' in your mind when you heard of an agency owner having sex with his SP, was the pimp taking advantage of the poor little innocent girl. On the other hand the first thing that 'popped' into my mind was a personal experience. An experience that brings proof that a women can have an urge to do her boss.
Anyways, it's all about persepective.
I'd like to add a note here:
This was the first time I took part in a debate on MERB (or any other board, as a matter of fact) I enjoyed it alot. I'm glad to see everything was done in a civil manner. If I've learned one thing it is that you have to take the time to carefully read the post you reply to. So many posts are wasted on people repeating what has already been written.
EagerBeaver said:
EB,
I did the polls across Canada for two reasons. First, I was curious to see if the results would vary, which they did - they were not as lopsided. Second, I wanted to see if this practice is more common in other cities, which apparently it is (in Toronto it`s even more rampant among notorious male agency owners).
>>B1G, even though we disagree, I enjoyed your input so please feel free to enter any future debates. BTW, the first thing that popped into my mind was why do owners take advantage of the situation. It`s just wrong.
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:
B1G said:By the way... the note I added to the post above, about this having been a civilised debate.... I hope I will not have to edit it out !!
I have decided not to engage any members who constantly try to discredit me or take cheap shots at me. It is painfully obvious that these members are into holding grudges. An SP and MP that I deeply respect told me it's not worth fighting with people on these boards and to continue posting my threads. They are both right.
GG
Similar threads
