Excellent article on prostitution in The Economist

[Malvolio]

Here's the link:

External Link/Members Only

As a pro-free market and socially liberal newspaper, I'd expect The Economist to talk sense on this issue, and it does.  The research figures it provides also indicate that Americans pay a lot more than we do per hour.

[d00fer]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

[Sparquin]

Excellent article. Key takeaways

- the Internet makes prostitution easier for women to enter
- it appears to offer better security by being Internet facilitated
- support groups (obviously SAAFE) allow women who take up the trade to feel better about what they do

This ought to point to more girls in the biz and therefore an increase in supply.

However it also implies that prostitution will continue to be a BCD activity and therefore this will inevitably delay any enlightened public debate as to its role in society.

Views anyone?

[Uoti2]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

+1

Vanessa, a part-time escort in southern England, finds that weeks can go by without her phone ringing. Men see buying sex as a luxury, she says, and with the price of necessities rising it is one they are cutting back on. Even when she offers discounts to whip up interest, clients are scarcer than they were.

Are rates for paid sex really as price-insensitive as the above quote suggests? Until I read that article, I'd just assumed that a WG with a high price and dusty phone syndrome was either:
 - deliberately using her high price to reduce demand, because she's clever and popular; or
 - refusing to lower her price since "I'm worth every penny", because she's stupid and unpopular; or
 - happier moaning about the problem than trying to fix it, because she's a woman.

This ought to point to more girls in the biz and therefore an increase in supply.
Views anyone?

Perhaps, even though it's a very highly-paid and (ostensibly) low-skill job, prostitution has unconventional but significant barriers to entry. Otherwise, as you say, one might expect at least the lower end of the market to be flooded with supply, which in turn would drive down prices.

[Convince Me]

An informative article.

Not happy my details could be plastered over Ugly Mugs if a misunderstanding was to occur. External Link/Members Only

[Captain Caveman]

All good points. My takeaways:

The internet has made life easier for everyone, just like it has for the sale and purchase of other goods and services.

Average price per hour (in 12 rich countries): $265 = £158, which sounds about right for the UK

Average price per hour in London: $233 = £139. I don't do 1-2-1s in London but sounds low

Anal attracts a premium of $25 (£15) and spanking $50 (£30) - sounds the wrong way round to me; can that be accurate?

A boob job will attract a premium and pay for itself in 90 hours of work - bargain!

The influx of EE girls is undercutting UK girls (are WGs more likely to vote UKIP than the average?)

[pokenn]

Anal attracts a premium of $25 (£15) and spanking $50 (£30) - sounds the wrong way round to me; can that be accurate?

Spanking is potentially safer and less painful than anal sex. Anal, even with a condom has it's dangers eg anal bleeding, possibly causing or aggravating haemorrhoids.

[Captain Caveman]

Exactly, which is why I find the price difference odd.

[Stealthshagger]

thanks, interesting article.  I imagine prices are advertised prices, though as we know many accept less (rb and the like). I also imagine we see median numbers, rather than actual averages. Or am I mistaken here?

[Stealthshagger]

I dont see facials on the extras there

[Falstaff]

Excellent article

[dilettante]

Here's the link:

External Link/Members Only

As a pro-free market and socially liberal newspaper, I'd expect The Economist to talk sense on this issue, and it does.  The research figures it provides also indicate that Americans pay a lot more than we do per hour.

Is that because they pay by the inch?

[Stealthshagger]

Is that because they pay by the inch?

Yes, we pay by the yard in england

[Daffodil]

So fatties charge less, big surprise.

People often trot out the line that "beauty is the eye" and all that, but, when it comes down to it, fit girls "earn" more that the fat ones.

This should only be new information to those who think we're all made equal. A minger is a minger, and just because someone finds her attractive doesn't make it so.

Good article, a few other interesting points.

[jcdmj12]

That one article has more quality research in it than all the theses I've seen by sociology and gender studies students I've seen posting on punting boards over the years.

[Malvolio]

I'm pleased that someone in the press has had the balls to come to the sensible viewpoint and back what we all think.  Mind you, it probably helps that all of the articles in the Economist are anonymous...

[Barry Shipton]

Damn sight better researched than that article in the Indie about Britain's highest paid rent boy bollocks mentioned on another thread.

Shame the research is based on a US site and it's prices - but the principles of what costs more should be the same. Needs someone to do a similar job on AW - including regional variations as prices certainly seem to vary as I read reviews on other regional boards.

[Marmalade]

Hidden Image/Members Only

One of the most data-led news magazines available and it's come up with two sheavily pro-legalising prostitution articles, plus a massive international survey (190,000 profiles of sex workers) using a database they are not at legal liberty to name but from which they deduce a mass of statistics and tables on prices, places, cim and anal and various other things that prompted them to issue a small (apparently their first ever) warning that the language may affect some prurient cunts in Whitehall. It also shows that ugly fat prossies earn a lot less than good looking ones (ahem, "slim, attractive"). Two main articles: a leader entitled, "External Link/Members Only," and a special feature called "External Link/Members Only". They also say the price of a shag is going down (no pun intended). Brief audio interviews as well on the website.

Worth a fiver.

[Sparquin]

Sadly the FT online has a rather cynical revIew of the article. It states prostitution is illegal.  Nice try, Economist, but I reckon nothing changes.

Hope I am wrong.

[Marmalade]

I notice they don't have much to say really against The Economist's 5 pages and 4 charts. There is a link where they say they "spill the beans" but the quick glimpse before the "subscribe now" cut me off didn't look very substantial. Thought it was worth a mention anyway. Anyone that can cut and paste the FT's "hidden" article please do!

[shagbambi]

Great article. Thank you for posting links.

[Barry Shipton]

I know sex sells - otherwise we wouldn't be here - but all the heavies seem to be debating it this week.

Not well researched because they are opinion pieces but US news mag Time has a piece by a famous (in America) comedian arguing to legalise prostitution:
External Link/Members Only

And a rather hackneyed response with the old argument using 'official statistics' that all girls are trafficked:
External Link/Members Only

[Gav Lee]

I think the Economist data they say is from a website that is primarily US focused hence the data is too.

And I think the comment about prostitution bring illegal is also referring to the US, hence they say US websites have to say all their content is fictional to get around this.

On a quick read, it's interesting but in terms of the UK paid sex scene I doubt if many posters on here will find much they don't know already, if anything.

Some of the international stuff is interesting tho.

And good to see the leader article pro- letting people make their own choices about buying/selling sex.

[Marmalade]

The Economist came out in a fairy recent edition earlier, pro-prostitution. I don't always ahree with them, but the articles do tend to be pretty solid research and well written, so I find it interesting when they take a stance on something so important. They don't change track much either, unlike most newspapers that present a 'variety' of opinions. Not that it will suddenly make Mr Cameron say to his wife, "I've decided to legalise prostitution and plan to hire some as new secretaries to 'do my bit' in helping them."

Those ministerial drives every morning must be hellishly boring. What better way to get a spunky new approach on a big portfolio than have a tasty young lovely sucking you off under the papers on your lap. Just check that she does CIM, David.

[Prestige Escorts]

We bought a copy of the Economist on Sat when the front page caught our eye
The sex business , I have to say the article is the best I have ever read about our business
and the analysis and the graphs are brilliant and I would back up there  findings
The fact that money for services has come down in recent years I can confirm we have been charging the same prices for the last 10 year so in real terms the ladies and agency are making way less than 10 yrs ago

[GeeWiz]

Article from The Economist.

External Link/Members Only|984859|50126&cid2=UKSiteWhitelistLiberalCausesPayforSexCTOutbrain

[Happylad]

Having read the article in full, I must confess to considerable amazement at its contents.  The suggestion in the article seems to be that english girls are struggling for business, and that the foreign immigrants are driving the price down by undercutting them.  Particular mention is made of "Michelle", a part time escort in  the south who sometimes has to wait weeks for the `phone to ring, and "Sally" a `mature` lady in the south east who runs a form of co-operative and who states that the english girls are having a job to find work.

In contrast my own experience appears to indicate that most of the english girls in my area are apparently so busy that they never need to answer emails or the telephone, the foreign girls almost all charge the same as the english girls, and my regular is almost always booked for a full week ahead (in between her `holidays`), and the price has indeed risen.  When I first started punting almost 7 years ago the average local fee for an hour was £90 - top whack was £100 - for incalls, and outcalls were usually an extra tenner or so; £150 for 2 hours was not uncommon.  Now the starting price for most girls is £150 for an hour plus a £100 for every additional hour for incalls, and an outcall costs anything up to an extra £50.

Am I living in the wrong place or has the author of the article been suckered by a packet of `hard luck` stories, or was he just very carefully selective in his choice of pro$$ies in order to bolster up a load of bollocks into an article he could publish?.

[sweetas]

External Link/Members Only

[Redster69]

External Link/Members Only

[galcom666]

Working non paywalled version?

External Link/Members Only

[emkay]

External Link/Members Only

Interesting that peroxide and small tits are a negative.

[RedKettle]

interesting article - thanks.

[Zeusthedoc]

interesting article - thanks.

+1

[Chuckman]

Thanks for posting this emkay, it was an interesting read.