“If a hot guy paid me to have sex with him, I totally would!”

This is a moderately common idea about prostitution, even if it isn’t always stated so baldly. Even among sexworkers who don’t perform sex acts (strippers mostly, but also some others), there is a little too much ‘yeah, i’d totally have sex for moneys if i thought the guy was hot and, you know, it was the right price’. The right price generally being minimum five figures for a night, shockingly.

Dirty little secret: if a guy is giving you money for sex with him, he mysteriously rachets up in appeal. is this unilaterally true? nah. every women who fucks for money refuses at least a handful of clients, even the ones doing it for drugs. but overall, most prostitutes don’t think their clients are omg hawt. that’s not how it works. you have money and that makes you omg hawt for the time it takes to acquire that money from you, within some surprisingly minimal constraints (this would be the criteria for refusal, which vary from sexworker to sexworker).

even when sex acts aren’t involved, the principle still holds. it is a fundamental of sexually-oriented work. when i danced, the range of guys i found attractive mysteriously increased to match the range of guys who would give me money with minimal or no hassles.

the myth that money doesn’t create its own sliding scale of tolerance in the interactions between men and women is one that irritates me regarding sexwork. a lot of women say ‘oh i totally would if i could only dance for/fuck/pose naked for guys i consider hot without money involved’. it’s a curious subversion that once you bring money into it, ‘guys i consider hot’ gets to be a pretty broad category.

another time i will mention casually another dirty little secret about the nature of the buyers, something that sexworkers instinctually or consciously use in their work but hate to have mentioned explicitly.