From what I have been told concerning tuition in Canada, tuition is cheap compared to the United States.
The young women I have met who were actually in college in Montreal while doing SP work, needed the money more for living expenses, e.g. dorm room or apartment, food, utilities, etc. in addition to the modest tuition.
The one item the article you posted sort of mentions, but does not spell out is the role of the agencies for the women. The agencies are the real protectors of these women.
The agencies know where the women are, who they are with, and how long they will be with the women. Making the transaction illegal from the agency point of view in no certain terms, in the customer's private location, actually puts the women at risk. She may try to conduct her business by herself, although in this model she is still not acting illegally unless she is near a school, etc., where there are juveniles. Anyone who interacts with her transaction wise is acting illegal. She will do all she can to protect the transaction, the client, and any protector IF she uses one. So the danger for her is not the law. It is protecting her business partners and customers from the law. In that way, I agree with the article. Whether it is tuition or the provider is a single mother, or the bread winner for an unemployed household (I have met these women in this business), the government doesn't understand the sex providing business. Their myopic view of the reality is startling.
The young women I have met who were actually in college in Montreal while doing SP work, needed the money more for living expenses, e.g. dorm room or apartment, food, utilities, etc. in addition to the modest tuition.
The one item the article you posted sort of mentions, but does not spell out is the role of the agencies for the women. The agencies are the real protectors of these women.
The agencies know where the women are, who they are with, and how long they will be with the women. Making the transaction illegal from the agency point of view in no certain terms, in the customer's private location, actually puts the women at risk. She may try to conduct her business by herself, although in this model she is still not acting illegally unless she is near a school, etc., where there are juveniles. Anyone who interacts with her transaction wise is acting illegal. She will do all she can to protect the transaction, the client, and any protector IF she uses one. So the danger for her is not the law. It is protecting her business partners and customers from the law. In that way, I agree with the article. Whether it is tuition or the provider is a single mother, or the bread winner for an unemployed household (I have met these women in this business), the government doesn't understand the sex providing business. Their myopic view of the reality is startling.