Prostitution and the internet - More bang for your buck

[The Woofer]

I think this is a well written and interesting article posted on the Economist Website.
The very last paragraph states that "As paid-for sex becomes more readily and discreetly available online, more people will buy it. A greater awareness may develop that not all sex workers are the victims of exploitation."

So very true - at least I hope it's true.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...haking-up-oldest-business-more-bang-your-buck

TW

 

[chilli]

A greater awareness may develop that not all sex workers are the victims of exploitation."

Most everyone knows that "generalizing" about anything usually is wrong.

It's the same thing about the pot argument; there are more side affects from a lot of prescription drugs and a lot of prescription drugs are HIGHLY addictive.

But that doesn't stop people from "generalizing" that pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs.

I find it highly ironic when most of our prescription drugs are 10 times worse than pot could ever be.

 

[Hairypalms]

Woofer - you beat me to it. I read it this morning and thought is was well written compared to most regarding the business. The price graph seemed on the high side compared to my experiences in the cities listed, but close. Usually i chuckle when I read a story that has a cost figure in it such as the Secret Service Agents that got busted in Venezuela [different articles mentioned cost as high as $500/hr]. Same with those that focus on the dark side of this business. A good read.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

the average price point for vancouver definitely didn't take the asian micros into account. for an average, i would say they're way off. for a midpoint between the highest rate listed and the lowest rate listed (or midrange to be precise), maybe - but not an average

 

[hornygandalf]

the average price point for vancouver definitely didn't take the asian micros into account. for an average, i would say they're way off. for a midpoint between the highest rate listed and the lowest rate listed (or midrange to be precise), maybe - but not an average

Note that the rates have been adjusted - "Selected cities, adjusted for cost of living compared with New York, 2012-2014." So, the chart is looking at the average costs in relation to the cost-of-living.
What it doesn't state is the source for the cost-of-living data. And it needed more detail on how they actually calculated the averages.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Note that the rates have been adjusted - "Selected cities, adjusted for cost of living compared with New York, 2012-2014." So, the chart is looking at the average costs in relation to the cost-of-living.
What it doesn't state is the source for the cost-of-living data. And it needed more detail on how they actually calculated the averages.

agreed

although i find that to be the main problem with the economist - reasonably good writing, but backed up with VERY questionable interpretations of the data

i used to subscribe but i couldn't stand that feature of it so i quit

 

[westwoody]

The comments are as good as the article.