"She must have daddy issues..."

I didn't say all of them. In fact, I went out of my way to say it's not all of them. Just said many of them.

Don't you agree? You work in the industry - although PSO, IMO, is more of the business aspect of the sex industry.

I know a number of strippers and have been involved with clinics that offer therapy to prostitutes (well actually, it was drug addicts, but I encountered many prostitute/addicts) and many of the people I met, did in fact come from abusive homes.

Not really. But maybe my view is biased. Where I work, the attention whores don't last long. We're all about the money and don't give three shits about "exploring our sexuality" or whatever BS line that's popular that week.
 
Also, unless the argument is being made that prostitution = submission or something equally ridiculous, what the hell relevence does that point even have to the thread's topic (of daddy issues possibly leading to submission)?
 
I didn't say all of them. In fact, I went out of my way to say it's not all of them. Just said many of them.

Don't you agree? You work in the industry - although PSO, IMO, is more of the business aspect of the sex industry.

I know a number of strippers and have been involved with clinics that offer therapy to prostitutes (well actually, it was drug addicts, but I encountered many prostitute/addicts) and many of the people I met, did in fact come from abusive homes.

There are so many restaurant chefs with substance abuse problems that they actually have labeled it a *high risk profession.*

I've been around the industry enough to see a lot. Some people are coked up trainwrecks. Some people are highly functioning. Some people are graduate students.

Oh that was retail, same goes for sex work.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but if you're seeking to provide a higher authority than your own anecdotal evidence, you might want to choose someone other than Melissa Farley.

Actually, what I am trying to do is engage in a discussion and perhaps even learn from other people's knowledge and experience.
 
I gravitated toward the sex industry because there were no jobs to be had, and I was broke and too proud to take handouts. Just for the damn record.

I personally find it much less abusive than any of the other employment situations I've ever been in. Any. Even when I was in control of the others. Customers are better in my world now.
 
There are so many restaurant chefs with substance abuse problems that they actually have labeled it a *high risk profession.*

I've been around the industry enough to see a lot. Some people are coked up trainwrecks. Some people are highly functioning. Some people are graduate students.

Oh that was retail, same goes for sex work.


As well as dentists, truck drivers, and painters.
 
Just wanted to stop by quickly and say that I'm glad my thread question has generated so much discussion.

I will read the responses more in depth later, but for now...bedtime calls.

Have a good one :)
 
Last edited:
As well as dentists, truck drivers, and painters.

Yes. But no one's making a pathology of anyone's work as any of the above.
Personally I find it pathological that the culture is ONLY interested in exploitative work environments when sex is part of the job, not, like, part of the harrassment on the job every day or when the exploitation doesn't involve sex.

"A lot are from abusive homes" well check the stats on abuse, a lot of EVERYTHING is from an abusive home.
 
Actually, what I am trying to do is engage in a discussion and perhaps even learn from other people's knowledge and experience.

But no one really seems to be discussing the topic other than BB and myself.

My point was that Melissa Farley is a known anti-pornography, anti-sex work, anti-kink activist. Her research is overwhelmingly biased in favor of her own views, and quoting her to back up your beliefs is like Billy Graham hauling out Fred Phelps to back him up.

By pointing out the fallacies in your argument, I've been attempting to make you realize that you need to approach the discussion in a different way. Simply saying "I heard prostitutes come from abusive homes" is not an effective argument.

I've already stated my own opinion - "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." In other words, some submissive people come from broken homes, some don't. Some people from broken homes turn submissive, some don't. The same applies to prostitutes - some come from an abusive background, and some don't. Some people from abusive backgrounds enter sex work, and some don't. Attempting to paint everybody with the same brush will get you nowhere; that's the "hasty generalization" fallacy I referred to.

Some people have Daddy issues and some don't. I don't even know what "Daddy issues" means, except that it's something vaguely Freudian and implies that there is a connection between our childhood selves and our adult sexual selves, which may or may not be the case.
 
We *should* be asking what impacts father relationships have on male sexuality, no?

I'm not bothered by the question but by the uneven application of it.
 
I personally find it much less abusive than any of the other employment situations I've ever been in. Any. Even when I was in control of the others. Customers are better in my world now.

Yep. I agree.
 
My point was that Melissa Farley is a known anti-pornography, anti-sex work, anti-kink activist. Her research is overwhelmingly biased in favor of her own views, and quoting her to back up your beliefs is like Billy Graham hauling out Fred Phelps to back him up.

By pointing out the fallacies in your argument, I've been attempting to make you realize that you need to approach the discussion in a different way. Simply saying "I heard prostitutes come from abusive homes" is not an effective argument.

I've already stated my own opinion - "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." In other words, some submissive people come from broken homes, some don't. Some people from broken homes turn submissive, some don't. The same applies to prostitutes - some come from an abusive background, and some don't. Some people from abusive backgrounds enter sex work, and some don't. Attempting to paint everybody with the same brush will get you nowhere; that's the "hasty generalization" fallacy I referred to.

Some people have Daddy issues and some don't. I don't even know what "Daddy issues" means, except that it's something vaguely Freudian and implies that there is a connection between our childhood selves and our adult sexual selves, which may or may not be the case.

That was a much more effective way to engage the topic and I think you've made many very good points and went about it in a way that will be sure to influence my participation in future discussions.

It certainly wasn't my intention to many any generalizations and I stated (or tried to... or planned to) that it was my opinion based on what little experience I had.

As far as Farley goes, I didn't know much about her but believe the Psychiatric Times to be a reputable and well regarded publication. For now, I am off to bed, but when I return, I do plan on reading more about her and about this topic and hope to continue this discussion then.
 
Both publicly and privately, Ronald Reagan called his wife "Mommy." She called him "Ronnie."

From which we can clearly conclude that guys with mommy issues will grow up to be charismatic leaders, characterized by homophobic avoidance of critical gay health issues and a tendency to engage in illicit arms for hostages deals as well as the secret funding of murderous gangs in Central America.
 
Back
Top