There's an article on today's New Statesman website, by a radical feminist, with the title"A modest proposal for making the sex industry safer. Make punters get a license"
It actually sounds very reasonable until the end. If I understand it correctly, it's just a license to ask an escort for penetrative sex for money. And you have to pay the escort her fee, whether or not you have sex. So it's not really clear to me what you are really paying her for.( You might as well ask a non sex worker for sex because if she says "no" you've haven't lost out. )
OK, it's intended to eliminate economic pressure to do the job. But I just wonder if the author of the article has had a cleaner or a babysitter, and offered to pay her the money whether or not she consented to do the job. I don't know about anyone else, but economic pressure is the only reason I do my job.
It would be fairer if the same license system applied to marriage. Then there would be a level playing field. If when proposing marriage men had to guarantee the equivalent of a divorce settlement if his intended said "no." (That would soon put a stop to rich old men getting trophy brides and penetrating them. )
Anyway it seems like it's only really penetrative sex that the article objects to so I suppose there's always the option of a greasy tit fuck.
Maybe my post wasn't 100% fair.
At least radical feminists are now considering the reform of punting and prostitution, rather than their complete prohibition.
So progress is being made.
It just seems an unworkable scheme.
The articles' author can't be blamed for not knowing knowing this, but a lot of the time sex workers advertising doesn't match up to the services they actually provide.
In my experience, sometimes you're refused the services that have been advertised; this particularly with French kissing.
Sometimes i've been offered services which
haven't been advertised, e.g. bareback (I haven't been offered bareback by anyone I've reviewed or mentioned on this forum.)
I've even been refused French kissing by someone who advertised it, but she asked me if I wanted bareback which she
didn't advertise.
So paying the escort a flat fee and leaving it entirely up to her what she does or doesn't do with you, with no negotiation - well what could possibly go wrong with that?
On the other hand I was reading a blog by an American prossie who said review sites by publicising services actually delivered put pressure on sex workers, to provide more services than they want to across the board. Instead of tailoring services individually to the client. I think what tailoring services individually to the client means is doing more with the ones they fancy (The big breasted black haired cutie Polish C****** Cloisters
modus operandi) . Which is really fair enough . But the best thing in that case is just advertised the minimum services you're prepared to do, assuming the punter is clean, not a psycho and has the right money. Then you can offer bonus services to the hot clients on the understanding they don't put it in any reviews.
