Leaderboard

Thank you for your rich response. You name many nuances that deepen my own understanding. For now I refrain from further comment, hoping that others will engage with your observations,

Mind you, a lot of eminent people in the medical field have been accused of that lately. With disastrous consequences. I don't know enough to critique him myself, but happy to learn.

This gunna be long, so buckle up, lol. (Summarization is not my strong suit :D) Personally, it's my opinion that sex work, on its own, is morally neutral. We know that sex is a normal and natural human behaviour. Humans are wired for connection and are naturally drawn towards physical contact with others. The reasons to purchase sexual services varies from patron to patron. Things like; stress relief, kink exploration, human contact, engaging conversation, and "mental vacation" are just some of the reasons I've heard. If there are people who are willing to provide a supply for the demand, that's not inherently exploitative just on its own. (From a worker's standpoint, I felt far more exploited while employed by a cafe for just above minimum wage than I do in sex work where I set my own rates and hours.) I would argue that while sex and human contact can have a therapeutic benefit, it is a far cry from an actual form of therapy. The key difference here being that therapy has a mindfully structured and goal-oriented treatment protocol that aligns with specific methodologies. I would encourage people to do away with the idea that sex workers are therapists. (Even if a sex worker is certified in the field, they may be a therapist, but they not your therapist.) To quote a fellow sex worker on this: We are twice as expensive and half as qualified. As far as sex addiction goes, there's a mounting body of evidence that suggests it doesn't actually exist. At least, not in the way people think. This is because "sex addiction" fails to activate the same parts of the brain that typical addictions do. It does not appear in the DSM-5 as a diagnosable mental health condition. An interesting fact is that, on average, self proclaimed "sex addicts" do not engage in sexual activities (intercourse/masturbation) more than the general population. The difference here is the internalized shame that "sex addicts" themselves have attached to the specific activity. That shame is often rooted in religious ideology that has been taught to them about sex throughout the duration of their lives. Alternatively, shame can come just from the moral code of your environmental setting as well. One of the growing pains of the present time is that our society still has a lot of contradictory views around sex and around the morality of how we engage with sex. These views are mostly left over from a more puritanical time. It really wasn't that long ago that even divorce was a whispered subject and children born out of wedlock were widely considered as products of sin. That's not to say that sexual activity can't become problematic. There are many people that engage in sex and masturbation to the point that it does interfere with their day to day life. This is more effectively treated as a symptom of a larger issue, rather than the primary issue itself. It can also be viewed as a compulsive behaviour. The importance of distinguishing between this and a true addiction is that the treatment procedures for addiction vs. lack of impulse control look very different. As far as trafficking goes, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't agree that it's a tragic evil. The fallacy with your thinking here though is that labour trafficking exists across nearly every sector. I would not say that there are good reasons to see farming, fishing, or hospitality as "evil" industries because of the trafficking that is rampant within them. Labour rights and legal policies that offer protections based in human rights are essential in actually combatting all forms of trafficking. I won't get into the "legal and regulated", because I've already written a novel here, but there is a reason sex workers advocate for a decriminalized legal framework. Legalization models sound great on paper but are often counterintuitive and only cause further harm.

Fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about neuroscience to comment on that. I do know that a lot of times, what we consider "behavioural addictions" are often solved through different treatments than those typically used for substance use disorder, or even gambling (which is the only behavioural addiction that is recognized in the DSM 5). Oftentimes, these "addictive" behaviours actually become less problematic on their own when the root causes, such as low self-esteem, are addressed.

Interesting, but the key word I think is "extreme." What I gathered from the Lustig video is that over exposure to dopamine actually caused cell death. I don't know if "fasting" can repair this, but if you go cold turkey early enough, perhaps it can be mitigated.

He ain't the only one! I guess the argument comes down to whether the addiction is to the behavior or the response. Either way it isn't a good place to be.

It does get a bit tricky because compulsion and addiction are used so interchangeably, and because there is obviously a compulsive element to addiction. Addiction itself is far more complex than impulse control though because of physiological changes to the brain's communication pathways. I've just done a lot of reading of criticism on sex addiction though, and why it's largely rejected by science. It's quite interesting! Mostly it just turns out to be high libido and low impulse control though. I'm far from a neuroscientist, obviously lol, but the things I've read point to a general misunderstanding by the public about how dopamine actually works. Absolutely! There will always be criticisms of anyone! This guy in particular isn't a quack by any means... he just sells an idea that we are all addicted to dopamine, sugar is poison, and that's why we're so miserable... but buy his book so you can fix it. I'll be the first to admit that he guy's far more knowledgeable about brain and body things than myself, but it's been pointed out that he's used to his knowledge to misrepresent science to people who don't know better.

Ah. Did not know that.

I don’t really have the time to unpack this atm, but I will say that Dr. Robert Lustig is highly criticized for making exaggerated claims and being heavily biased in his work.

That's actually a common misconception! You can't be addicted to dopamine, or any neurotransmitter for that matter. You can develop a compulsive pattern of behaviour that triggers its release, but that is not a true addiction. Compulsion is an intense urge, whereas addiction is physical dependency. So while a compulsive behaviour can feel like an addiction, it's not. The "tolerance" you reference is largely attributed to dissociation in the individual while engaging in the compulsive behaviour.

Two very thoughtful posts. Well considered and written. Just to throw something in, I was watching a fascinating video regarding serotonin and dopamine. (Happy to provide the link if anyone is interested). Interestingly, they interfere with each other, but the big take away is that you can easily and quickly become acclimated to dopamine. It actually becomes a clinical addiction. You need more and more to achieve the same "high". So while you may not be sex addicted, you can become so to the neurochemical effects that sex produces. As for Berlin's penultimate paragraph, that is truly inspired. Pretty much every trade and many products can be "evil" if used or sold by the ill-intentioned. Just think of the slave labour that is used to produce everyday objects. As Orpheo says and Berlin agrees, just because something can be evil is no reason to ban it outright. People often clamour for "clamping down" or making up new laws, when our basic legal code already allows for effective prosecution, if only the officials responsible would do their job.

That happens when you respond to 17 year old posts.

Berlin, I'd agree with all of that. If I'm thinking of seeing someone new and they have a website (kind of obligatory for me nowadays), their testimonial page is very useful. OK, they're not going to post anything negative, but so far it has been a great resource. The way the comments are written is quite a tell. I think the issue is how bloody lazy most prospective clients are. And how gullible. They see a pretty face and a hot body and that's it. Men are simple and naive creatures when it comes to sex. They (we) bring it on themselves.

Is this what we’ve come to?? 🥲 Please, say it isn’t so! In all seriousness, Lyla adheres to a far more ethical standard than most of the other boards I’ve encountered over the years. This holds true even despite its recent shortcomings. The moderation (or lack-thereof) lately is a valid concern that is shared amongst many members here. As far as recos not being posted though, it’s important to keep in mind that things like explicit recounts and numerical ratings of other human beings are not permitted. Negative comments aren’t necessary. If you’ve been taken advantage of through a scam or dangerous encounter… there’s a sub section for that. The way this industry functions presently has rendered review boards, in their traditional sense, mostly useless. I think many would agree that they’ve largely outlived their own necessity. Providers are now verifiable across multiple platforms… a far cry from the way things were at the inception of hobby forums. Recommendations of course are always helpful on both the side of the client and the provider, and there are respectful ways to leave them. Engaging with the overall environment that exists on other boards though is not something I would encourage.

That part, most clients are worried about being scammed, whether it is by fake pictures, people stealing deposits, a false advertising of services, stating a rate and then attempting to uncharge for everything, etc. there is also a small risk of being robbed and an even smaller risk of being drugged. However, providers are worried about being raped or murdered. Now, of course clients have on very few occasions been murdered, but the ratio of providers murdered to clients murdered is extremely high. I can only think of one serial killer that targeted clients, but most serial killers target sex workers. More importantly, the information imbalance that exists between providers and clients is extremely high if the client is savvy. If you put in even a small amount of effort you will know pretty much everything you need to know about me to do a risk assessment before I even know you exist. For clients who are new to the industry, you protect yourself by reviewing all the information a provider gives you access to. When you view her social media, go to "replies" tab on her twitter profile, see if she engages with other providers. Scammers are now making twitters to look authentic, but they are not taking the time to build community with other sex workers or engage with them for networking because they are scammers and not sex workers. If you make some effort it is not hard to see the type of person you're dealing with. Good luck, be safe, and remember, you want to screen us to not lose a few dollars, we want to screen you to not lose our lives xo

Clients new to the game will fumble around and make mistakes. New SPs at least have access to the SP community when they are starting out, though I know a lot don't take advantage of it. Lyla should be the ideal source of information and advice for tyro clients, but I doubt if one in ten know of it. My advice to them would be exactly what Ms Manda recommends. If the provider has an established online presence and requires screening, you can be pretty confident that what you see is what you get, but some of the scam artists are getting wise to it and actually create, or even appropriate, websites. There's risk on both sides, but the SPs are the most exposed so any and all precautions are not only justified but essential.

I'd add to this that in most cases, people looking to rob or scam a client will probably not go through an entire screening process before they see someone. Tactics generally involve advertising lower-than-average prices as a lure, and then telling someone to come over right away. There is little to no barrier in the way of getting you there. However, just because a provider doesn't screen doesn't mean they will rob you... And of course, there are always outliers, so to echo others' sentiments, due diligence should never be overlooked.

Clients can screen us via due diligence on our online profiles, social media, reviews, fansites etc to ensure you're meeting someone legit 🙂 We screen with real world info from clients to help ensure our safety when meeting someone new. I'm less likely to be harmed by someone who screens, than by someone who's anonymous and booking with a text app, just from my experience There is no need for a client to have our real world info though.. It's a potential safety concern for us, leaving us open to stalkers and more - also why we use aliases ❤️ Hope this helps! Xo

Let me chime in. First of all, Lyla has been bought by leolist...for the better or worse...but this is the fact. Secondly, Lyla is NOT a review board and negative comment is not allowed thus if your reco sounds like a review with all the juicy, explicit details, it won't get approved and published. Thirdly, credibility of the poster. The moderator might see the poster's IP address, the "duration" and the content of his/her post. For example, if someone joins Lyla at 11 am on March 28 and directly post a reco of a particular provider at 11.15 am on the same day. His reco most probably will not be published. Another example, if a reco sounds like as a marketing campaign with over the top wordings for a particular provider, it won't most probably be published either. The worst scenario, of course, when a provider write her own reco with the same IP address, it definitely won't be published. And so on It's tricky huh 🥴 Allie Zeon