King's Court - And all the king’s men

[grant]

From the student paper that created all the fuss over its printing of mildly censored vaginas on its cover comes a piece of investigative journalism that I think might be an interesting read for some of you guys.

Link to the article (http://anonym.to/?http://www.honisoit.com/2013/08/and-all-the-kings-men/)

[pepefirstlove]

Thanks for sharing that, great read.

[Travelmate]

good reading
yes
next step is ...........？？？？？

[Fisher]

Interesting too see how much $ the house gets compared too the worker seems too me it should be the other way around.
Never been here never will now the manager also comes across as a sleazebag aswell.

[grant]

good reading
yes
next step is ...........？？？？？

Option 1:
You find yourself struck by the ethical issues this article has confronted you with as a punter. You question whether your punting habits are really reinforcing the patriarchy; whether or not you are contributing to a situation in which women are not "free to enjoy the rights and freedoms of those in mainstream professions". Depending on what you conclude to yourself, you may then question how this will affect your punting habits.

Option 2:
The article was a pleasant read. It led to a minor thought train which has left as quickly as it came. The significance of the article wanes and you go back to what you were doing as if you'd never read it.

[yellow_fever]

The author clearly had an axe to grind. I sent her the following email;

"Would you have felt so strongly about it if the owner were a woman? I hardly think this is exploitation, women, just like men, have opportunities available for low paid unskilled work. In many cases women are favoured over men in the hospitality industry. Women choose sex work over other unskilled work for various reasons, but mostly they take that path for the money - being able to earn a normal week's wages in a day has its appeal.

I'm guessing 'the rest of the money' in the shops hourly rate goes towards the standard costs of running a business; rent, electricity, linen, waste collection, public liability and workers compensation insurance, fitout, advertising, the general risk of running a business, and hopefully some profit.

I don't really understand the general feeling of hatred towards men that you seem to have, and the vibe that this is all driven by men. We are fortunate to live in a country where we have welfare, a reasonably good justice system, and jobs are available. Certainly there is some small amount of trafficking, and exploitation, but by and large women choose sex work over other work by free choice and are legally entitled to do so.

One of your main gripes seems to be about the legitimacy of the under the counter money being exchanged, and the perceived loss of rights/entitlements associated. Legalities aside, did you question any of the ladies working there as to whether they would like to declare their income, pay taxes, and possibly lose their austudy assistance in return for receiving those rights? Sex workers who work as sole traders out of their own homes have none of the benefits you mention, and also none of the safety associated with working in an established venue. They also generally dodge the tax man in the same way. The difference here I guess is that the owner of the establishment really is still liable when push comes to shove if anything goes wrong.

I'd be a sex worker if there were similar jobs available for men, but there aren't. There is paid sex work available for men, but generally under far worse conditions, and less pay, at higher risk, and having higher requirements in terms of appearance and services offered."

An alternative shorter version of the article might read something like; "I went to apply for a job I had no intention of taking, and wasted a bunch of people's time because I wanted to confirm my own stereotypical assumptions about the sex industry without actually spending any time working in the industry. Ignoring the fact that most of the women take this job because it's relatively anonymous, affords them a venue with security and costs them less than the rental of a hotel and gives them free advertising, plus the owner takes the heat and they still get to walk away at the end of the day with tax free money just like every other independant working lady, I decided instead to focus on the fact that the place was run by a man. God I hate men! While working I decided to break the law by smoking in the workplace and met another girl who thought that was cool too. Too bad I exposed my potential employer to potential lawsuits for my own gratification. Anyway, he was a fat slob, and fuck all the women who freely decided that this was a good way to make money, I hope this place gets shut down thanks to my article and the girls can go work for minimum wage or just be streetwalkers and get arrested or killed."

The end ;-)

[jellyshots]

Wow, just because some young journo writes an article, it must be fact, right? The article is from a very biased perspective. I recognize her avatar. I was there that day and I'm pretty sure I was the guy in the suit. Here's the thing, yes, I was on the lounge, lounging about as you do at Kings when you're waiting for your booking.

So, here I am, in a room full of guys. I've seen a few of them before - all are older or appear older than I am. None in suits. A few older guys in their 60's and 70's. Some even bold enough to ask each girl if they basically like being fingered. It never happens, John trains the girls very well to be polite but firm on their boundaries. That's really what he is doing when he asks them about sex - he's helping them find their boundaries, giving them scenarios and then offering advice on how to say, "No". He does it for about 2 weeks then leaves them to it.

Each girl comes out, scans the room and hurriedly intros themselves to the other punters. They smile and wave to me as they go past - they have to intro in order of which punter came in first. Do I stupidly stare ahead, f*ck no! I check their arses out on the way through. They know I'm looking and give me the wiggle. I love it, they love it. I sit right opposite the bar. So when they finally get to me, they get flirty and chatty and hang for a bit. Mainly because, if they've worked there for longer than a month, I've booked them before.

So in walks this Asian girl, I had no idea who she was, looking at me like I'm the biggest prick in the world for being there (like I was her f*cking bf or something) and yeah, I admit it, I see Katie saying to her to basically not to worry if I don't book her because she's not my type. i.e. she has a little too much puppy fat on and she looks she'd cry if I pulled my dick out. So she comes over anyway and Carla, another manager yells from the back, "Careful, he bites"... Yes, I roll my eyes and pull a face in that direction - big deal...

Now as for how much they are paid, it's about the same as the Asian run massage shops. They have ABN's because they bill per job. This is common in strip clubs and Cauc run chops. In Asian shops, the business owner doesn't declare anything and is a cash run business so which one is dodgier?

The manager that used to try to pay the girls cash was fired. I won't go into the specifics but girls have the option and are encouraged to get paid via a bank account. They choose not to so they don't have to declare tax - even though Kings does. John has a few businesses, the others are perfectly legit so he's no stranger to business tax minimization.

The manager talking to the journo was probably Carla. Now Carla used to be an ML - fingers crossed, she may go back to it now she's single again... She hasn't got the hottest bod but she has a refreshing acerbic wit, is a bit of an honest country girl at heart and in my experience, the second best kisser I've had the pleasure of DFK'ing in there. Carla has worked at other massage places before for a short time... One owner used to bring their nephew in once a month and basically pick a girl at random and tell her that if she didn't f*ck the nephew, she was fired. A number of those places encourage full service as a paid extra. Not so at Kings - although all of the punters know if you want FS in Kings, just grab any Asian girl - they pretty much all offer for a price. The smoking, yeah Carla is a tough taskmistress on that one.

John, a sleazebag? Well, he likes the Asian girls. He pretty much only kisses them on the cheek - he doesn't get handsy. Many of the Asian girls know this and dick tease the poor bastard. But, other than that, everyone treats him like the boss of the business. They chat to him, ask his advice on stuff, make him a coffee but certainly he has had to rescue girls from bad clients. I just don't think the journo go to experience a busy night. That night, there were about 30 customers - a slow day for them. On Sat nights, they have over 100 guys come in...

[Tk001]

Journo sounds like a feminist

[Chucky]

King’s Court pays employees $40 per 30 min, $50 per 45 min, and $60 per hour. Contrast this against the customer fees of $125 per 30 min, $145 per 45 min and $165 per hour.
Fair split??

[yellow_fever]

King’s Court pays employees $40 per 30 min, $50 per 45 min, and $60 per hour. Contrast this against the customer fees of $125 per 30 min, $145 per 45 min and $165 per hour.
Fair split??

If the girls don't like it, there are plenty of other options out there.... but that's a pretty standard pay. The girls could work in other shops, or they could work privately and have to cover the cost of rent/linen/advertising etc by themselves and have less security/anonymity too. whether it's 'fair' depends on your view, and the class of the girl and the class of the shop. Some shops are real dives, and you can get FS for $50/hr. How much of that do you figure the girl is getting, maybe half? Of course the shop is awful the girls are definitely not first rate. At the other end of the spectrum some shops are charging FS $400/hr or more, out of which the girl is getting maybe half also. Of course the girls are much higher quality, younger, better looking etc, and the shop is classy too. Ive never been to kings, but I would imagine the shop is middle of the range, and the girls are reasonable quality but relative newcomers. Seems like a shop in that location would have fairly high rent, so I guess it's a fair enough split.

[Divine]

Journo sounds like a feminist

Quite funny actually, I know of this journalist. She is definitely quite the feminist.

[Bracket]

Journo sounds like a feministWhat makes you think that? Perhaps this quote :

Denouncing the sex industry whilst simultaneously profiting from it manufactures an oppressive double-bind where women, in a profession which already places them in an exceedingly vulnerable position, are taught to reject the agency of other women who choose to exercise their own bodily autonomy, and are instead fed a narrative of hegemonic masculinity that ruthlessly disassembles female sovereignty. It is an apparatus of ideological control, crafted to foster dependence on a grossly illogical paradigm.

I have no idea what she means!

[grant]

What makes you think that? Perhaps this quote :

Denouncing the sex industry whilst simultaneously profiting from it manufactures an oppressive double-bind where women, in a profession which already places them in an exceedingly vulnerable position, are taught to reject the agency of other women who choose to exercise their own bodily autonomy, and are instead fed a narrative of hegemonic masculinity that ruthlessly disassembles female sovereignty. It is an apparatus of ideological control, crafted to foster dependence on a grossly illogical paradigm.

I have no idea what she means!
Here's my interpretation:
She is continuing the point that she raised in a previous paragraph where the receptionist introducing her to the job is trying to differentiate KC from the 'other' shops in which women practise prostitution. She's saying that trying to suggest that KC is different from 'full service' shops is disingenuous, because KC is implicitly offering clients exactly this. She argues that a shop which is up front about the fact that it undertakes prostitution is acknowledging and respecting the choice made by its workers. Attempting to present the women who work at KC as "just students and travelers looking to make a bit of extra money” - rather than women who have made a choice to be sex workers - is a way of exerting power over these women. It is a way of perpetuating an ideology that maintains the existing power structure. At least that's how I read it.

jellyshots, I see where you're coming from and I agree that she's made more assertions about KC than she may have hard evidence for. Just taking a step back, away from KC, I think you would agree - from your mention of the owner who brought his nephew into the shop - that at times sex workers can be placed in a more vulnerable position than they are in already. The women whose jobs it is to offer a significant level of intimacy to strangers are potentially at significant risk of harm at the hands of their customers. Management may or may not have a good way of dealing with this and protecting their workers. If you consider the potential for abuse from management though, and a lack of acknowledgement of their employment with a shop, they're in a much more vulnerable position. If Big John is the guy whose job it is to rescue his workers from asshole clients, who is the Big John to rescue these women from asshole management? (to be clear I'm speaking generally and am not making any suggestions about KC or its management)

I am making an assumption about the whiteness of your collar and as I'm sure you're aware, harrassment and misconduct in an officeplace can carry hefty penalties. You sign a contract when you start work and are formally recognised as an employee of the workplace. It is thus the job of the employer to ensure that you have certain guarantees and protections while you are working there because it is all on paper. This is clearly not the case with the shops we visit and it is unfair for the women who work in them.

I get that there are certain tax advantages that can be gained in limiting the degree of association of these women to a particular shop. In doing so however, you give up far more. I see that there is a certain attitude among some that the issues that sex workers may be confronted with just come with the territory; that they have to accept these risks if they want to be sex workers. Unfortunately that seems to be the case for the most part, and the argument that the author is making is that this is unfair, particularly for those women who expose themselves to significant potential harm already.

Why should these women not have the same rights as all other women in other professions?

[CunningLinguist]

King’s Court pays employees $40 per 30 min, $50 per 45 min, and $60 per hour. Contrast this against the customer fees of $125 per 30 min, $145 per 45 min and $165 per hour.
Fair split??

I always thought that half was the minimum the girl got, I guess they expect them to get alot of tips...

[CunningLinguist]

Here's my interpretation:
She is continuing the point that she raised in a previous paragraph where the receptionist introducing her to the job is trying to differentiate KC from the 'other' shops in which women practise prostitution. She's saying that trying to suggest that KC is different from 'full service' shops is disingenuous, because KC is implicitly offering clients exactly this. She argues that a shop which is up front about the fact that it undertakes prostitution is acknowledging and respecting the choice made by its workers. Attempting to present the women who work at KC as "just students and travelers looking to make a bit of extra money” - rather than women who have made a choice to be sex workers - is a way of exerting power over these women. It is a way of perpetuating an ideology that maintains the existing power structure. At least that's how I read it.

jellyshots, I see where you're coming from and I agree that she's made more assertions about KC than she may have hard evidence for. Just taking a step back, away from KC, I think you would agree - from your mention of the owner who brought his nephew into the shop - that at times sex workers can be placed in a more vulnerable position than they are in already. The women whose jobs it is to offer a significant level of intimacy to strangers are potentially at significant risk of harm at the hands of their customers. Management may or may not have a good way of dealing with this and protecting their workers. If you consider the potential for abuse from management though, and a lack of acknowledgement of their employment with a shop, they're in a much more vulnerable position. If Big John is the guy whose job it is to rescue his workers from asshole clients, who is the Big John to rescue these women from asshole management? (to be clear I'm speaking generally and am not making any suggestions about KC or its management)

I am making an assumption about the whiteness of your collar and as I'm sure you're aware, harrassment and misconduct in an officeplace can carry hefty penalties. You sign a contract when you start work and are formally recognised as an employee of the workplace. It is thus the job of the employer to ensure that you have certain guarantees and protections while you are working there because it is all on paper. This is clearly not the case with the shops we visit and it is unfair for the women who work in them.

I get that there are certain tax advantages that can be gained in limiting the degree of association of these women to a particular shop. In doing so however, you give up far more. I see that there is a certain attitude among some that the issues that sex workers may be confronted with just come with the territory; that they have to accept these risks if they want to be sex workers. Unfortunately that seems to be the case for the most part, and the argument that the author is making is that this is unfair, particularly for those women who expose themselves to significant potential harm already.

Why should these women not have the same rights as all other women in other professions?

I suppose if they had all these protections we would be paying more ...

[jellyshots]

Here's my interpretation:
She is continuing the point that she raised in a previous paragraph where the receptionist introducing her to the job is trying to differentiate KC from the 'other' shops in which women practise prostitution. She's saying that trying to suggest that KC is different from 'full service' shops is disingenuous, because KC is implicitly offering clients exactly this. She argues that a shop which is up front about the fact that it undertakes prostitution is acknowledging and respecting the choice made by its workers. Attempting to present the women who work at KC as "just students and travelers looking to make a bit of extra money” - rather than women who have made a choice to be sex workers - is a way of exerting power over these women. It is a way of perpetuating an ideology that maintains the existing power structure. At least that's how I read it.
The thing is though, they don't offer full service and most of the girls in there are exactly that - students and travelers making some extra money.



jellyshots, I see where you're coming from and I agree that she's made more assertions about KC than she may have hard evidence for. Just taking a step back, away from KC, I think you would agree - from your mention of the owner who brought his nephew into the shop - that at times sex workers can be placed in a more vulnerable position than they are in already. The women whose jobs it is to offer a significant level of intimacy to strangers are potentially at significant risk of harm at the hands of their customers. Management may or may not have a good way of dealing with this and protecting their workers. If you consider the potential for abuse from management though, and a lack of acknowledgement of their employment with a shop, they're in a much more vulnerable position. If Big John is the guy whose job it is to rescue his workers from asshole clients, who is the Big John to rescue these women from asshole management? (to be clear I'm speaking generally and am not making any suggestions about KC or its management)
Erm, of course women who work in shops are at a significant risk. Most shops, not just KC's has video footage. With something like a potential abuse from management, all I can say, at KC's, it would be extremely difficult. There are cameras everywhere and the management has been trained to call the cops at the first sign of trouble. John isn't always there and the training isn't always by him - more often than not, it's by the other girls and management. At KC's they are generally safer than some of the smaller budget Asian shops just because the clientele is different.



I am making an assumption about the whiteness of your collar and as I'm sure you're aware, harrassment and misconduct in an officeplace can carry hefty penalties. You sign a contract when you start work and are formally recognised as an employee of the workplace. It is thus the job of the employer to ensure that you have certain guarantees and protections while you are working there because it is all on paper. This is clearly not the case with the shops we visit and it is unfair for the women who work in them.
I am now. Contractors, with their own ABN's, which these girls are, are covered by harassment and misconduct laws. All businesses must cover external contractors. The girls don't get holiday pay because technically each of them is running their own business but frankly, when I was contracting, we had exactly the same setup as these girls (except the services offered were different). They also have to pay public liability and professional indemnity. Now, many shops don't even declare that they have contractors on the premises or help the girls get setup with their ABN's, they just pay them cash under the counter. Those girls have zero protection from being 1. ripped off or 2. harassed.



I get that there are certain tax advantages that can be gained in limiting the degree of association of these women to a particular shop. In doing so however, you give up far more. I see that there is a certain attitude among some that the issues that sex workers may be confronted with just come with the territory; that they have to accept these risks if they want to be sex workers. Unfortunately that seems to be the case for the most part, and the argument that the author is making is that this is unfair, particularly for those women who expose themselves to significant potential harm already.

Why should these women not have the same rights as all other women in other professions?
If ML's or WL's were paid a minimum wage, then their overall pay would decrease due to economies of scale. The girls know what they're in for. They can leave at any time. I know of one manager who's regretting her decision to switch to management and is looking to come back as an ML.

[jellyshots]

I always thought that half was the minimum the girl got, I guess they expect them to get alot of tips...

Most of the girls get a minimum of $400 per shift. The good ones get $1000. I'm not including tips. At Kings, they get a lot more bookings. Over at At Michelle's I was told by a very good looking ML that they get $125 for an hour booking. It's typically busy for them for 2 weeks then when the clients find out they won't do FS, they may only get 1 or 2 bookings a day. The rest of the time they sit around doing nothing. At the Asian stores, they usually get $300 per shift and up to $500 on a busy day.

It's all a much of muchness in the ML world. I'm sure that the WL world is quite different and the cash quite different too.

[CunningLinguist]

Most of the girls get a minimum of $400 per shift. The good ones get $1000. I'm not including tips. At Kings, they get a lot more bookings. Over at At Michelle's I was told by a very good looking ML that they get $125 for an hour booking. It's typically busy for them for 2 weeks then when the clients find out they won't do FS, they may only get 1 or 2 bookings a day. The rest of the time they sit around doing nothing. At the Asian stores, they usually get $300 per shift and up to $500 on a busy day.

It's all a much of muchness in the ML world. I'm sure that the WL world is quite different and the cash quite different too.

Some ML's do and some ML's don't!
I was pleasantly suprised the other day, just dropped into a ML shop for a half hour quickie and after turning over the hot skinny young girl asked me if I wanted FS, I wasn't even going to ask her but since she asked I said yes and the rest is history ...

[yellow_fever]

And you didn't even share the name of the shop/girl!