help me think this through

[justabitofred]

I’d look at it from future you’d perspective. How would you explain this to future partners? How will you feel about it when you’re 30, or 40, or 60?

Also of concern is your total reliance on this one person for everything. You will be off the grid. Nothing will be in your name. If he decides to cut you off, or if you decide you want out and he doesn’t allow it…it could get ugly. I’m not saying you’re going to end up in a box under his bed…but you might. This other girl could easily be a co-conspirator in one the con.

And your foundational argument, that life is hard so why not…well, is life going to be easier after a year spent essentially not existing? You’re not building credit, or getting an education, or building work experience. How will you explain that year to future potential employers? You’ll be fighting for the same jobs as other people a year younger than you are, who HAVE been building credit and getting work experience and getting an education. I think it will put you on the back foot in terms of your future.

It’s tempting because it’s easy, I get that. But I think it’s a bad idea.

Thank you. Well I have friends that have taken a year or even two off to travel. Then they come back to school with more enthusiasm. When you say credits do you mean course credits? I already said I know it's a bad idea. Why do people keep saying that? I know that. I hate asking my Dad for money for school because I know he has none. He doesn't tell me that, pretends he is doing OK but he isn't. Sorry, cring now have to g.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Oh yeah? Why would you respond in the first place then? Can you explain that? And why would you laugh and swear at me? No one else did that here. But a MODERATOR did that? This is just appalling for a moderator and super lame that this has to come from ME, a NOBODY, I'm a LOWLIFE, can't do anything right apparently. Go ahead Miss Moderator, delete this message so no one else can see it. You're on top of the world right?

Thanks for ruining a perfectly good conversation I was having.

You really like to draw some interesting inferences. Please show me where I called you a nobody or a lowlife. That said, I think you’re just having some fun in this thread and I’m here for the show.

Btw, I have no obligation to be nice here. I move content that beaks the Lit TOS. That said, I do often help people in the forum. Also, I haven’t deleted any of your comments. That accusation is possibly eye opening to who you may be as your main account.

ETA: Why did I reply in the first place? In the event that you actually were a naive young woman seeking advice on this topic. That’s not mutually exclusive from not giving a fuck about who you choose to listen to or converse with.

 

[wicked woman]

Also, I haven’t deleted any of your comments. That accusation is possibly eye opening to who you may be as your main account.

Yup, was a real give away. He just can't help himself.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Ha. I think I've worked out what's going on in this thread. I hope I'm right.

Interesting turn of phrase and use of caps there…

You two are so much faster than me!

 

[KimGordon67]

You two are so much faster than me!

I think we've come to somewhat different conclusions.

 

[Bramblethorn]

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I laughed out loud

 

[KimGordon67]

I did say no pictures or video and he did respect that. I actually found him pretty easy to work with, almost pleasant. But Firebird is right in that, perhaps too easy for what he ended up paying me. I'm suspicious now.

"... but I'm NOT a sex worker".

 

[XerXesXu]

"... but I'm NOT a sex worker".

You live in a long bygone age. Today we all can self-identify. If she says she's not a sex-worker, she's not.

 

[KimGordon67]

You live in a long bygone age. Today we all can self-identify. If she says she's not a sex-worker, she's not.

That's true. But what she's doing is sex work. The fact that she's not standing on a street corner doesn't change that.

 

[KimGordon67]

This isn’t gender, this is an occupation.
Nice try.

I dunno. I think if someone doesn't want to call themselves 'a sex worker', that is sort of their choice, and most of the stuff that's written about this industry does try to be respectful of the language that the people involved choose for themselves.
But it doesn't get around the fact that the OP is (apparently) 'a person engaging in sex work', so it really is playing with semantics a little bit. And it also doesn't excuse the OP's suggestion that some sex work is somehow morally acceptable, while others (presumably that engaged in by, in 'her' words, 'whores' and 'prostitutes') isn't.

 

[XerXesXu]

This isn’t gender, this is an occupation.
Nice try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Don't do it.

 

[KimGordon67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Don't do it.

LOL. The only person in this thread who has really engaged in slut-shaming is the OP.

 

[XerXesXu]

LOL. The only person in this thread who has really engaged in slut-shaming is the OP.

Really. And what would the OP say to that? Other people have other perspectives.

 

[KimGordon67]

Really. And what would the OP say to that? Other people have other perspectives.

She's the only person who's suggested that sex workers are 'whores' and 'prostitutes', and the only person to suggest that sex workers who 'stand on street corners' are somehow morally inferior to whatever she's doing.

But feel free to accuse those of us who are simply stating facts, without moralising about them. I personally have no problem with any type of sex work, including that which the OP is engaging in. I'm just pointing out to her that it's not going to have the outcome she seems to be expecting.

You might read the entire thread before making assumptions about who's said what.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Really. And what would the OP say to that? Other people have other perspectives.

I would highly suggest you read the entire thread. Exactly two people (although I do believe it is the same person putting on a show) slut-shamed sex workers. One of those people was the OP and the other person said the same in a comment that I edited.

 

[XerXesXu]

Did you read the thread, or slide in with your big spoon to stir the pot?

Yes, I read the thread. (I make all the usual assumptions in favour of the veracity of the OP.)

You're being oblique; ask me what you didn't understand?

Is it that, if you don't think how you label others is bad, then your label can't offend and demean them?

Is it that because she looks down upon them you are given permission to look down upon her?

Because she slut-shames, you can too? Do you really want to take your lead from her?

I live in a culture very different from the one I grew up in, probably very different from yours, where an attractive woman capitalising on her erotic capital would be entirely unproblematic. When you offend such women you offend people close to me.

Other people have other perspectives.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, I read the thread. (I make all the usual assumptions in favour of the veracity of the OP.)

You're being oblique; ask me what you didn't understand?

Is it that, if you don't think how you label others is bad, then your label can't offend and demean them?

Is it that because she looks down upon them you are given permission to look down upon her?

Because she slut-shames, you can too? Do you really want to take your lead from her?

I live in a culture very different from the one I grew up in, probably very different from yours, where an attractive woman capitalising on her erotic capital would be entirely unproblematic. When you offend such women you offend people close to me.

Other people have other perspectives.

Good grief - multiple people have pointed out that only the OP (and maybe the Firebird guy) have engaged in slut-shaming. No one else has made derogatory comments about sex workers.

And to the best of my recollection, no one has made derogatory comments about the OP's engagement in sex work. (I may be wrong here. I have read the entire thread, but I don't have time to trawl back through it now to ensure that no one has cast aspersions on the OP because she's chosen to accept money in payment for sex.) Certainly, Fara hasn't. All she, and others (including myself) have done is point out that she is, by most definitions, a sex worker - if you or she choose to see that as a negative label, that's up to you/her. (I've accepted your argument that the OP can choose to reject that label, but as I noted, she IS engaging in sex work, whether she considers herself to be 'a sex worker' or not.)

And the OP did make derogatory assertions about sex workers - her perspective might be different, but it doesn't change that actual fact.

 

[XerXesXu]

She's the only person who's suggested that sex workers are 'whores' and 'prostitutes', and the only person to suggest that sex workers who 'stand on street corners' are somehow morally inferior to whatever she's doing.

But feel free to accuse those of us who are simply stating facts, without moralising about them. I personally have no problem with any type of sex work, including that which the OP is engaging in. I'm just pointing out to her that it's not going to have the outcome she seems to be expecting.

You might read the entire thread before making assumptions about who's said what.

If you'd read the thread (yes I know you have a bit, but lets not bandy snarks) you would have seen that she said:

'Well I'm NOT a sex worker. I go to school, live at home, well I used to have a job. I don't hang around a street corner at night. I mean how would I do that, sneak out of my room and sneak back in? So as soon as I take money I'm a sex worker?'

You seek to assimilate her to a label she does not accept. She says she isn't a sex worker. You conflate her with streetwalkers, she doesn't self identify with them.

What you say above doesn't accurately reflect your contribution. Your words are morally charged, saying you're not moralising doesn't change that.

 

[KimGordon67]

If you'd read the thread (yes I know you have a bit, but lets not bandy snarks) you would have seen that she said:

'Well I'm NOT a sex worker. I go to school, live at home, well I used to have a job. I don't hang around a street corner at night. I mean how would I do that, sneak out of my room and sneak back in? So as soon as I take money I'm a sex worker?'

You seek to assimilate her to a label she does not accept. She says she isn't a sex worker. You conflate her with streetwalkers, she doesn't self identify with them.

What you say above doesn't accurately reflect your contribution. Your words are morally charged, saying you're not moralising doesn't change that.

I didn't conflate her with streetwalkers - not all sex workers are street walkers. I conflated her with sex workers because she'd engaging in sex work. Yes, when you take money in exchange for sex, that is sex work. In fact, in another post she refers to 'how easy the guy is to WORK with', and in yet another post she uses the terms 'whore' and 'prostitute' in quite derogatory ways, as a way of distancing herself from people she clearly finds objectionable.

I (and others) have very deliberately used the terms 'sex work' and 'sex worker' because of their relative neutrality. This is largely the accepted language used by anyone doing research or outreach work in the area (although, interestingly, our local advocacy group actually refers to themselves as a 'prostitutes collective' - a name chosen by the sex workers who comprise the group). My words are not morally charged - you're reading morality into them.

I have, more than once, admitted that your observation that the OP can choose to not identify as 'a sex worker' is correct. However, this does not mean she hasn't engaged in sex work - she has accepted money in exchange for sex. That's the literal definition of sex work.

It seems to me that you actually have some moral objection to sex work and/or sex workers, and you're reading what others write through that lens.

 

[XerXesXu]

she uses the terms 'whore' and 'prostitute' in quite derogatory ways, as a way of distancing herself from people she clearly finds objectionable.
......
My words are not morally charged - you're reading morality into them.
.....
It seems to me that you actually have some moral objection to sex work and/or sex workers, and you're reading what others write through that lens.

You're foisting on her a description she finds objectionable.

Think about her, not me. Do you think she finds your words morally charged?


Here's a lens. Make up your own mind up about my opinion of such women.

https://www.literotica.com/s/god-made-me

https://www.literotica.com/s/god-made-me-ch-02-genesis

 

[KimGordon67]

You're foisting on her a description she finds objectionable.

Think about her, not me. Do you think she finds your words morally charged?


Here's a lens. Make up your own mind up about my opinion of such women.

https://www.literotica.com/s/god-made-me

https://www.literotica.com/s/god-made-me-ch-02-genesis

Jesus wept. For the umpteenth time, I have accepted your point that she has the right to reject the label of 'sex worker'.

This does not change the fact that the activities she's described engaging in are sex work. If she finds that to be 'morally charged', that's a pity, but that doesn't change the fact that this is what she's doing, nor does it give her the right to make derogatory comments about street walkers.

I am not slut shaming her (or anyone) - I'm simply stating a fact.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you think that referring to what she's doing, or thinking of doing, as 'sex work', which is a completely neutral term, is somehow wrong or 'morally charged', you're welcome to that opinion.

 

[XerXesXu]

I am not slut shaming her (or anyone) - I'm simply stating a fact.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you think that referring to what she's doing, or thinking of doing, as 'sex work', which is a completely neutral term, is somehow wrong or 'morally charged', you're welcome to that opinion.

Read what you've written very carefully and and ask yourself who else you're echoing.

Hint: 'She's got a penis, she's a man - I'm simply stating a fact.'

I've invited you to stop thinking about me and start thinking about her. Why do you think you have a right to declare the term 'sex-work' as completely neutral? Why should your characterisation trump any non-neutral characterisation she might give it?
Why should she have your characterisation dumped on her?

 

[KimGordon67]

Read what you've written very carefully and and ask yourself who else you're echoing.

Hint: 'She's got a penis, she's a man - I'm simply stating a fact.'

I've invited you to stop thinking about me and start thinking about her. Why do you think you have a right to declare the term 'sex-work' as completely neutral? Why should your characterisation trump any non-neutral characterisation she might give it?
Why should she have your characterisation dumped on her?

This is just ridiculous. You're using a limit case to make your point, which seems to be that we shouldn't use words because the person we're talking to might read something into them that we don't intend.

I guess this is an area with which you aren't familiar, so here's a handy explanation of the terminology that I've taken from the relevant Wiki page. [ETA] I'm using the entry on 'sex workers' here because the 'sex work' entry doesn't discuss terminology, but I'm sure you can extrapolate from the people who are being discussed to the actual activity. (I've edited out some irrelevant bits for the sake of brevity, but the link to the full entry is here):

The term "sex worker" was coined in 1978 by sex worker activist Carol Leigh. [...] The term "sex worker" has since spread into much wider use, including in academic publications, by NGOs and labor unions, and by governmental and intergovernmental agencies, such as the World Health Organization. [...]

The term "sex worker" is used by some types of sexworkers (i.e. prostitutes) to avoid invoking the stigma associated with the word "prostitute". Using the term "sex worker" rather than "prostitute" also allows more members of the sex industry to be represented and helps ensure that individuals who are actually prostitutes are not singled out and associated with the negative connotations of "prostitute". In addition, choosing to use the term "sex worker" rather than "prostitute" shows ownership over the individuals' career choice. Some argue that those who prefer the term "sex worker" wish to separate their occupation from their person. Describing someone as a sex worker recognizes that the individual may have many different facets, and are not necessarily defined by their job.

The term is strongly opposed, however, by many who are morally opposed to the sex industry, such as social conservatives, anti-prostitution feminists, and other prohibitionists. Such groups view prostitution variously as a crime or as victimization, and see the term "sex work" as legitimizing criminal activity or exploitation as a type of labor.​

Quite clearly, the term 'sex worker' (and, by extension, 'sex work') is used precisely to avoid the sort of stigmatisation you're accusing me of. The fact that you, and the OP, seem to think that there is a stigma associated with sex work is a pity, but I can't do anything about that. I'm not 'characterising' her as anything - I'm correctly identifying the activity she's engaged in. What else could you call it? (I mean, obviously you could call it prostitution, but she doesn't seem to like that either.)

ETA - also, the equivalence to your hypothetical ''She's got a penis, she's a man - I'm simply stating a fact.' would be 'She's engaging in sex work, she's a sex worker - I'm simply stating a fact'.
I've admitted repeatedly that I was mistaken to say that she was inevitably 'a sex worker' (although others might disagree with me on that), so now I'm simply saying 'She's engaging in sex work - I'm simply stating a fact', without making any claim to a resultant identity as a result of that.
[These are possibly some of the worst sentences I have ever written, but I can't be arsed fixing them.]

 

[XerXesXu]

This is just ridiculous. You're using a limit case to make your point, which seems to be that we shouldn't use words because the person we're talking to might read something into them that we don't intend.

I guess this is an area with which you aren't familiar, so here's a handy explanation of the terminology that I've taken from the relevant Wiki page. [ETA] I'm using the entry on 'sex workers' here because the 'sex work' entry doesn't discuss terminology, but I'm sure you can extrapolate from the people who are being discussed to the actual activity. (I've edited out some irrelevant bits for the sake of brevity, but the link to the full entry is here):

The term "sex worker" was coined in 1978 by sex worker activist Carol Leigh. [...] The term "sex worker" has since spread into much wider use, including in academic publications, by NGOs and labor unions, and by governmental and intergovernmental agencies, such as the World Health Organization. [...]

The term "sex worker" is used by some types of sexworkers (i.e. prostitutes) to avoid invoking the stigma associated with the word "prostitute". Using the term "sex worker" rather than "prostitute" also allows more members of the sex industry to be represented and helps ensure that individuals who are actually prostitutes are not singled out and associated with the negative connotations of "prostitute". In addition, choosing to use the term "sex worker" rather than "prostitute" shows ownership over the individuals' career choice. Some argue that those who prefer the term "sex worker" wish to separate their occupation from their person. Describing someone as a sex worker recognizes that the individual may have many different facets, and are not necessarily defined by their job.

The term is strongly opposed, however, by many who are morally opposed to the sex industry, such as social conservatives, anti-prostitution feminists, and other prohibitionists. Such groups view prostitution variously as a crime or as victimization, and see the term "sex work" as legitimizing criminal activity or exploitation as a type of labor.​

Quite clearly, the term 'sex worker' (and, by extension, 'sex work') is used precisely to avoid the sort of stigmatisation you're accusing me of. The fact that you, and the OP, seem to think that there is a stigma associated with sex work is a pity, but I can't do anything about that. I'm not 'characterising' her as anything - I'm correctly identifying the activity she's engaged in. What else could you call it? (I mean, obviously you could call it prostitution, but she doesn't seem to like that either.)

ETA - also, the equivalence to your hypothetical ''She's got a penis, she's a man - I'm simply stating a fact.' would be 'She's engaging in sex work, she's a sex worker - I'm simply stating a fact'.
I've admitted repeatedly that I was mistaken to say that she was inevitably 'a sex worker' (although others might disagree with me on that), so now I'm simply saying 'She's engaging in sex work - I'm simply stating a fact', without making any claim to a resultant identity as a result of that.
[These are possibly some of the worst sentences I have ever written, but I can't be arsed fixing them.]

1978??? 43 years ago!

Remember how this started:

[Originally Posted by KimGordon67 View Post
"... but I'm NOT a sex worker".

You live in a long bygone age. Today we all can self-identify. If she says she's not a sex-worker, she's not.
Yesterday 03:39 PM]

I was suggesting that you don't observe contemporary standards of sensitivity and respect. The world has moved on.

Think of how we refer to people who are not white today; compare it to usage 43 years ago, then 70 years ago.

If you said of a housewife, married or unmarried:

" 'She's engaging in sex work - I'm simply stating a fact', without making any claim to a resultant identity as a result of that."

would you deny their right to take offence.

The OP is contemplating such a relationship. She rightly rejects your labelling her exclusive relationship as 'engaging in sex work' simply because she'll be economically dependent, like many housewives.