Feminism and Sex Work; Have We Lost the Plot?
Nandipha Mntambo, “Umfanekiso wesibuko (Mirror image)” (2013), cowhide, resin, 21c Collection
Spring is on its way and I want to hop on and give a quick update on my life and thoughts about the industry.
On my life: a recent injury has put my normally adventurous life on hold. While my friends are all in Alaska skiing the best snow on Earth, I am turning inwards towards my yoga, meditation, and dance practice. Pangs of fomo strike at whim, but taking the time to slow down, reflect, and get in touch with myself has been surprisingly gratifying.
I have also been spending more time and energy pursuing goals outside this industry. I am beginning to define success not in terms of fame and fortune but in the extent to which my job requires the use of my intellect.
To that end, I am being more selective about the dates I choose to accept. At this point intellectual gratification is tantamount to sexual and financial gratification for me. You gentlemen want genuine? Be smart and you’ll have me as the real me. It is impossible to show up any other way in an intellectually rich relationship.
On the industry: I have been thinking a lot about what feminism means within the context of sex work. I used to think that feminism is choosing the female over the male at all costs–that the industry runs on respect for women and that the more we band together and demand respect, the more respect we will get.
But I now believe the industry runs on mutual respect between men and women. And I feel that a certain amount of that has been lost.
First, there is much ado about screening and deposits. Some clients are uncomfortable sending personal identification and a deposit before meeting a provider for the first time. Providers oftentime complain about these clients and assume they are disrespectful.
While I do require screening and deposits for first dates, I do think it is perfectly reasonable for a client to not want to compromise their anonymity and send money to someone they don’t know.
In this industry the client's anonymity is regarded (rightfully so) as less important than the provider's safety. This is because she takes a far greater risk going to an appointment without knowing his identity than he takes by forgoing his anonymity. Men are more likely to be violent; more sex traffickers are men than women; more rapists are men than women; and more killers are men than women. So by a provider going to a date without knowing the identity of her client, she risks being hurt, raped, trafficked, or killed.
However, by forgoing his identity the client does take a risk as well. They do risk their career, and their personal life if their identity falls into the hands of a malevolent, vendetta-driven provider.
While this is a comparatively smaller risk to take, it is still a risk. And to act like it is not a risk at all is unfair. Being unwilling to send money and reveal personal identity to someone you have never met before is not entirely unreasonable or inherently disrespectful.
I have on occasion– namely in small mountain towns, where I am well familiar with the anonymity concerns– seen clients with only recent references, phone number background check, and a phone call.
Some men do not respect women enough to send deposits to secure their time; others cannot use cash app and tip to the nines. There is room for ambiguity here. Always the provider's prerogative.
Duos are peak feminism, right?: I learned a lot about what feminism is, or rather what it isn’t through Duos. Frequent readers of my newsletter may recognize a previous article: “On Duos and Why I Love Em” and ask whether I have changed my mind. I have.
Here are my new ideas on duos. When I am touring with another escort I will offer duos but won’t suggest them to clients who have expressed interest in seeing only me. If I did that to you, I am sorry. If you're reading this and you think I should have used the word hustle rather than suggest: you’re probably right.
I was under the impression that helping women make money is feminism. But feminism isn’t about prioritizing women at the expense of men—it’s about mutual respect
Convincing a man he wants a duo when he doesn’t devalues his consent. It’s exploitative. And exploiting men makes them more wary of other providers, more likely to act disrespectfully, and less likely to uphold industry standards.
Imbalance of power: Yes, women have more power than men in this industry. But when we use that power to exploit, we mirror the very patriarchal structures we claim to be breaking the glass ceiling on here.
Example: A client recently missed an appointment for a completely legitimate reason. Technically, I could have charged a cancellation fee. But because of the unique circumstance, I didn’t. That’s not my usual practice, but I made a judgment call.
I sat with the moral ambiguity and came to the conclusion that charging would have been exploitative and would have made him wary of sending deposits to other providers in the future.
Industry standards like screening, deposits, and blacklists exist to protect providers. These protections are critical. But we must be careful not to let them breed entitlement.
Sex work is lucrative in part because providers sell a product: themselves. It’s fair for clients to take time vetting an expensive product before purchase. Many high-paid professionals—Tax Professionals, Real Estate Agents, Financial Advisors, Mortgage Brokers, (some) Lawyers—offer initial consultations for free. Many of whom require advanced and expensive degrees to attain relevant expertise.
While my time is valuable, it is hard for me to buy that my chatting, rambling, and tangent-ing on the phone is more valuable than a financial advisor's expertise. So I also offer a free initial phone call with a new suitor planning to spend a significant sum. This builds mutual respect. Clients have the right to determine if a provider is right for them—without being accused of being disrespectful.
Maybe this practice of mine makes the industry worse for women. But maybe clients are more likely to reach out to providers for FMTYs if they know they won’t have to invest a couple hundred bucks just to see if they are compatible.
All this within reason and to the extent that they have otherwise been respectful. I have found that more often than not, reciprocated generosity often pays off more than exploitation in the long run.
The bigger picture: It is uncontroversially good that providers have so many rights in the industry. But I do not believe those rights extend to being exploitative. As escorts, and ostensibly feminists, we are morally obligated to consider if our actions are exploitative and how that may compromise safety, and well being for other providers.
With all that in mind, the safety and profitability of this industry owe much to the remarkable efforts of escorts—particularly those at the high end—who wield greater influence to uphold and elevate industry standards. Their impact truly ripples downward, and we can’t express our gratitude enough. Let’s keep pushing to ensure upward mobility in this field is as safe and empowering as possible. Whether you command $1,000 or $300 an hour online, in the real world, we stand as equals
Sex work is so lucrative in part because for the overwhelming majority of human history, and in many parts of the world currently, selling sex is not a choice. And those forced into doing so rarely see the profits. Our profits are riding on the backs of profound and utterly grotesque injustices committed against women. And we owe it to them to take care of each other in this industry.
Lastly and obligatorily: a do not cancel clause. I understand my approach here does not take into consideration male, nonbinary, transgendered providers, or female clients. As a female provider that exclusively sees male clients I do not have the ethos to speak to aforementioned experiences. But the folks that write for Tryst Blog do.
On that note, I will post a spring travel schedule soon and continue offering controversial and unsolicited opinions on a more regular basis here. Happy spring everyone!
