Popular media on UKEscorting.com

Author Topic: Street Prostitutes  (Read 75606 times)

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
Wayang, sorry but that is total rubbish. If I were an "amateur" looking for a bit of money fast I would set up a quick profile on AW, get a couple of clients I needed, then take it down. Or go to a parlour for a couple of shifts. Most people considering prostitution would do one of those - not stand about freezing cold, risking arrest. Parlours/agencies mainly won't employ someone who obviously looks as if they have a drug habit, and the organisation required to be an indie, even an outcall one is not feasible when you have a chaotic life because of your drug-addiction, and are desperate for drugs.   
I'm still probably part-time now but when I started I was very busy with life stuff and I only wanted say 1 client a fortnight. I had NO IDEA about the industry at all - yet in one day and a couple of clicks of google in the internet cafe I had found AW, PN and also got an interview the next day with a local massage place. Narrowly avoided those scam agencies who just want money from you and don't actually send you to a booking.

Also, if you read my posts I never said it was fact. I stated a belief. There are studies which Lucy posted which are most likely credible however they have been bandied about by politicians trying to make ALL payment for sexual services illegal, not just street (as is the case now)

My belief happens to be backed up by spending over a year on placement in a clinic where I came into contact and had discussions with many many Street-Based Sex Workers. I only encountered 2 SW out of 100s who were not hard drug-users, but were homeless.

Offline Marmalade

Quote from: GlasgowGirl
My belief happens to be backed up by spending over a year on placement in a clinic where I came into contact and had discussions with many many Street-Based Sex Workers. I only encountered 2 SW out of 100s who were not hard drug-users, but were homeless.

I am not surprised - I immediately backed up GG as it was clear to me she was coming from a point of view of some personal knowledge. But let's quantify that - not in any way to take away from what you said GG but because by defining it more clearly it becomes more valuable IMO.

Clients (in this case, street prostitutes mostly using drugs) who contact clinics, support groups and social workers are a self-selecting group. The degree to which they are indicative of the whole group is generally belief-based, or based on other things, so extrapolation is only 'guesstimate.' I think GG may well be aware of this as she is at pains to distinguish reasonable belief from proven fact.

Additionally, if I can offer friendly critique (as my knowledge/experience will be different to any other individual), the fact that most girls are sufficiently Internet-savvy to set up a profile doesn't mean everyone can do that. I know several girls that struggle to get a profile up and them struggle to access it - whether because they have no Internet access, have zero knowledge beyond emails and social networking sites like Bebo, live miles from a cybercafe, or have uber-watchful boyfriends. I am just thankful that these ladies do not end upon the street. Another example. When I used to hang out with some guys and girls from an agency (socially, through mutual non-business friends), there was a guy on their books who regularly supplemented his (bi-) income by going down to the 'street.' None of these people are on drugs.

These are small concerns perhaps - and much as I might be at pains to qualify what GG is saying, I'd suggest listening to what she has to say. Hard suggestions based on field work and observation are among the best thing we've got when it comes to reform. Plus a lot of money of course.
;)

Offline Marmalade

Quote from: Wayang
I would suggest that the vast majority of street prostitutes are 'amateurs' looking for an occasional client to pay the rent.
Not sure about 'vast majority' ??? - but apart from that you have a point IMO.

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
Yup, it is a reasonable belief, not an out-and-out fact.

I see what you are saying with regards to only those with problems would contact support services. However as far as I could tell (again not known fact) - most of the women working on the streets came to the clinic purely for the vast supplies of free condoms.

I'm not very computer-savvy at all, however I have learned a bit through trial and error. When I first started this work, I did not even know how to send an email! But I see what you mean, some people have no internet access or knowledge at all and may go out on the street I guess, but how would they find where to go? I have always been genuinely curious about this. I had no idea before I worked at the clinic or had net access where the local red-light areas were. I always thought you would find out by perhaps getting involved in a certain 'crowd' and they would tell you. Although maybe it is common knowledge and I'm just naive!

Offline Lucy chambers

  • Banned
  • Posts: 350
I also agree with GG in her belief - but Lucy, those figures are dodgy in proving anything and you should know better. Do we really need to go into again how they have been extrapolated and passed around??

But there are two questions: one is how to better the lot of street prostitutes, the largest category of which are on drugs and so need additional support over and above security. I've also witnessed what GG said about girls being able to take simple precautions like basic risk assessment and precautions - steps which are harder if not impossible with a pernicious zero-tolerance attitude.

The other question is about the small percentage who are not drug users and probably elect to starve or whatever rather than risk serious trouble with the law. Those are more of interest to punters; but as Nik has stated the board discussions should in no way encourage punters to use street girls I am not going to discuss it at length. My concern was to avoid tarring everyone with the same brush, even if a large majority does speak volumes (it's still a majority, not 100%).

I'm pleased that at least we're getting some sensible contributions to the debate, and much as I maybe had some differences with GG when she posted before, I welcome her back wholeheartedly.

I should know better, indeed. But up to date information hasn't been collated on anything like the level it need to be. The 87% study stands though, I think :)

Offline Wayang

Oh the dangers of false data bases!
I would suggest that much of the resounding conclusions derive from resoundingly false samples.
I suggest that if you extrapolated the data from GUM clinics it would lead you to the conclusion that STDs are rampant.
If equally you tried to equate the number of alcoholics with AA data we would turn out to be a relatively abstemious nation.
But both conclusions are self-evidently false.
Added to false samples is the enthusiasm with which those involved with the results promulgate the data as the absolute truth.
You have only to listen to the zealots of global warming to realise the very real dangers of drawing false conclusions from lousy data.

Offline Keen Punter

On Arabs I can't comment as I have never seen the place, however I have heard the stories, and £40 for 40 mins!!! Are you kidding? And how much of that goes to the girl?
Sandy's in Manchester is only £50 for 30 mins. You pay £20 to the receptionist then £30 to the girl in the room. I would imagine that Arab's would be a 50/50 split.

I've had a couple of punts there. One with Lisa who was sensational and one with Piper. Although I have heard rumours that Lisa has a habit now, I don't think she did when I saw her. Not all of the girls who work there have habits, but it is well known that Janet does offer a haven for street girls. That is why I cannot understand why she gets so much bad press. Surely it is safer for the girls to be plying their trade in a parlour than walking the streets ?

I do believe though that the vast majority (maybe ALL) Street Prostitutes do not want to be there - they have to be for their drug supply.

That is a very sweeping statement backed up by opinion not fact.
I would suggest taht the vast majority of street prostitutes are 'amateurs' looking for an occasional client to pay the rent.
That assertion is just about as valid as your claim that the majority/ALL are druggies.
My mate is a Policeman in Wolverhampton. He says that all the street girls known to them have drug habits.

Whether all have habits across the country would be debatable, but I would put money on more being on drugs than not.

Offline Wayang

I said my assertion that street girls were not on drugs was about as valid as the assertion that they were.  No one knows and it is all anecdotal evidence.  All the studies are based on flawed data bases with extrapolation beyond reality.

Offline Mellow

Could be that the police arrest the ones that carry drug paraphenalia upon their person. Either that or the ones that sign the caution have mashed up heads.

100% of Street Hookers arrested show themselves to be druggies  :rolleyes:

Offline Lucy chambers

  • Banned
  • Posts: 350
I said my assertion that street girls were not on drugs was about as valid as the assertion that they were.  No one knows and it is all anecdotal evidence.  All the studies are based on flawed data bases with extrapolation beyond reality.

When you are arrested for on street prostitution and taken to the police station you are given the opportunity to say if you are addicted to drugs. In addition the police test for illegal drugs as standard for certain offences. I imagine that these studies are using that data, it isn't being collated for fun.

Offline Jimmyredcab

Sandy's in Manchester is only £50 for 30 mins.

One of my local brothels is £50 for 30 minutes --------------- however that is just a basic service and the girl would charge more for services like french kissing.

[[Link hidden, login to view]]

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
Quote
Sandy's in Manchester is only £50 for 30 mins. You pay £20 to the receptionist then £30 to the girl in the room. I would imagine that Arab's would be a 50/50 split.

I've had a couple of punts there. One with Lisa who was sensational and one with Piper. Although I have heard rumours that Lisa has a habit now, I don't think she did when I saw her. Not all of the girls who work there have habits, but it is well known that Janet does offer a haven for street girls. That is why I cannot understand why she gets so much bad press. Surely it is safer for the girls to be plying their trade in a parlour than walking the streets ?

I suppose working in a parlour is preferable to walking the streets yes, and maybe some of the girls do want to give up a big proportion of their income to be safe - i would if it were me. Although the idea of the powers which be actually helping drug addicts to stop for good (I have seen the 'solution' for drug addiction in this country and it is spectacularly bad, the police procedures are bad too) sits better with me than making money from someone's desperation. This may be a controversial opinion and off-topic but I'm going to say it anyway - I think that taking 50% or even 40% of  girl's earnings if you are a parlour owner is far too much imo. I pay for a separate incall place for myself - all the bills, supplies, security, maintenance and also my own advertising, so I know how much it costs. This could be made by one girl in one day with ease. So parlour owners must be raking in very hefty profits if they are taking 40%-50% of all of the girls earnings. I guess it is a risky business for them to be in legally so they have to make it worth their while as everything could be seized from them in an instant. However if like in New Zealand it was decriminalised then I don't think (hope) they would not be taking such a big cut, as it seems they could easily make a good living from taking just 25% - 30%. I know, I used to work in a parlour where they took 50% - I know for a fact they did not pay for advertising (were busy with AW and vivastreet when it was free) - when they tried to put it up to 55% I said enough is enough and left.
I'm not bashing all parlour owners - I do not mean that. I just think that the cut is a bit steep.

Off-topic rant over!  :D

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
I know I couldn't give a good service if I was seeing 10+ clients a day, like the girls have to in busy parlours (I have heard in lots of places). I would think you would burn out pretty quick.  Maybe I am wrong though.

And Jimmy, you seem obsessed with lowering prices, along with all the connotations of that. Is this your new slogan for 2011 then? You have to remember that this is a job which most women would not or could not do and the potential for disaster is there (being outed, violence etc) , so the rewards HAVE to be pretty damn high for women to enter the industry.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 11:29:28 am by GlasgowGirl »

Offline Lucy chambers

  • Banned
  • Posts: 350
 :lol:

You could say that Jimmy believes everyone should charge £120, yes. Also, that any lady who charges more should have a dusty phone, or something like that. Its all very sweet.

I couldn't see more than five clients in any 24 hour period, let alone ten.

Offline softlad


I couldn't see more than five clients in any 24 hour period, let alone ten.

That, I think is the difference between a good indie, and the conveyor belt scenario you get at some parlours, they want you in and out in as short a time as possible, it's all very short sweet and to the point.
With an indie you can woo her, caress her, tell her how wonderful she is, make slow lingering love to her......
Quick somebody stop me.... :P

Offline Lucy chambers

  • Banned
  • Posts: 350

That, I think is the difference between a good indie, and the conveyor belt scenario you get at some parlours, they want you in and out in as short a time as possible, it's all very short sweet and to the point.
With an indie you can woo her, caress her, tell her how wonderful she is, make slow lingering love to her......
Quick somebody stop me.... :P

Don't worry, someone will :)

Offline Jimmyredcab

:lol:

You could say that Jimmy believes everyone should charge £120, yes. Also, that any lady who charges more should have a dusty phone, or something like that. Its all very sweet.

I couldn't see more than five clients in any 24 hour period, let alone ten.

Some expensive Indies don't see ONE client in a 24 hour period ---------------- hence the dusty phone scenario.

Offline Jimmyredcab



And Jimmy, you seem obsessed with lowering prices, along with all the connotations of that. Is this your new slogan for 2011 then? You have to remember that this is a job which most women would not or could not do and the potential for disaster is there (being outed, violence etc) , so the rewards HAVE to be pretty damn high for women to enter the industry.

£120 is in my opinion a very fair rate, many professional people who have studied for years don't earn anything like that, I am not telling girls to lower their rates but urging fellow punters not to pay stupid prices.

Offline Wayang

£120 is in my opinion a very fair rate, many professional people who have studied for years don't earn anything like that, I am not telling girls to lower their rates but urging fellow punters not to pay stupid prices.

Seconded - only fools pay more than a reasonable amount for an hour with a WG.   If you go on AW you will always find WGs at sensible prices among the prima donnas who think £200/hour is justified.

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
But you do agree that the rewards have to be pretty high for women to enter the industry? and that they won't stay in it long if they burn out by seeing 10 clients per day?
If punters succeed in lowering prices really low (highly doubt it) you will have less and less choice and the previously good WG's left will be burnt out and exhausted from seeing so many clients just to make the same amount as they did, and will give poorer service.

I think that is the point here - you all want amazing service at really low prices (you would probably love it if all WG's charged £5!!!) but the fact is that no woman (unless very desperate) is going to become a WG unless the financial and lifestyle (less hours) are very very worth their while. I am all for providers giving a very good standard of service - which does not incidentally mean as many services as possible - just the WG putting in really good effort to ensure the punter enjoys himself. I am not for haggling and bartering etc though. That would really put me off.

Offline Jimmyredcab


If punters succeed in lowering prices really low

Are you suggesting that £120 an hour is a really low rate. :rolleyes:
Three punters a day, Monday-Friday would produce an income of £1800 -------------- tax free, your doctor probably doesn't earn that much.

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
The thing is Wayang, it is up to the individual woman what she charges. Calling someone a "primadonna" is just silly - she is just charging what she wants.

I know what you are saying (repeating ad infinitum) about "dusty phones" , I know basic Economics. I have seen it happen in practise as I often play about with my prices depending on different factors. Phone goes quieter when rates go really high, phone rings off the bloody hook if I lower them quite low (more than I could or would want to see). Happy medium = enough work but not too much at optimum prices. 

But people will charge what they want. What they think their service is worth.

If all WGs got together and said collectively "We are all now going to charge £200 per hour" - you would all have to pay that price if you wanted sexual services without going abroad I guess. Or get very frustrated.


Are you suggesting that £120 an hour is a really low rate. :rolleyes:
Three punters a day, Monday-Friday would produce an income of £1800 -------------- tax free, your doctor probably doesn't earn that much.

Are you suggesting that £120 an hour is a really low rate. :rolleyes:
Three punters a day, Monday-Friday would produce an income of £1800 -------------- tax free, your doctor probably doesn't earn that much.

Not wishing to tout the parlours of MK, but 120 an hour is their standard.  I do not believe that they take more than 1/3.  They take the risks, provide decent places to punt, all the washing, phones, advertising, etc and I, for one, think that is a reasonable fee structure for them and the girls.  Quality is good, availability is good, punter risk is minimal, and the girls almost without exception do what their profile says.

So JRCs 120 an hour gets you pretty close to gold standard... pay less for less if you want but with the exception of special services (A etc) I would think hard before paying more.  If a girl has a higher revenue requirement then she has to offer more services or special availability... or kick the coke and Manolo Blahnik addictions.

From experience with a reasonable popular/reasonably priced working girl, £1800 a week is a myth.

AFoAF

Offline GlasgowGirl

  • Banned
  • Posts: 624
Quote
Are you suggesting that £120 an hour is a really low rate.
Three punters a day, Monday-Friday would produce an income of £1800 -------------- tax free, your doctor probably doesn't earn that much.

Nope wasn't suggesting that. Basically what I meant in very simple terms was punters want the best service for the lowest price, providers of sexual services want high rewards for what they do or else they will just go and find other forms of employment (unless they are simply mad about having sex with numerous random strangers - then they would do it for free  :D)

Oh here we go again with the "tax free" nonsense >GG majorly rolls eyes< . Where do you get this stuff from? She is going to earn £1800 a week and what is she going to do with it? Put it in a shoebox? If she is getting benefits or tax credits (if she has a low paid "main" job) then her lifestyle obviously would not match her "income" and therefore would quite easily be caught. Malicious or jealous neighbours or exes or friends, random checks of bank accounts, passports and assets (benefits agency do this). Easy.
Unless a WG is only working for a very short time, she would be incredibly foolish to not declare her income. Ok she may get away with it but I wouldn't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time for the tax man to catch up with me. It is actually quite common to be caught, especially if the person is claiming benefits. I have seen it happen quite a few times to WGs I know, and it is not pretty.
So can we ease up with the blanket assumption that "WGs don't pay tax"???
This is not a hobby, it's a business. 

Offline Jimmyredcab



From experience with a reasonable popular/reasonably priced working girl, £1800 a week is a myth.AFoAF

What makes you say that. ?????????
£1800 a week is more than possible, not every week obviously but a pretty girl in a good location could easily achieve those kind of figures. :)



Latest media on UKEscorting.com