Prostitution: Elitism & Why I Despise the “Man in a Business Suit.”

Image

Like many young minds, I once believed the stereotypes that were socialized into my little mind from a young age. Back then, I had no idea that the debauched images, ideas and discourses from the mass media would vastly influence me to have a narrow outlook on life. When I started prostitution, I had a naive sense that wealthy-looking men were the ideal clients. It was not only clients, but I had a naive admiration of the ‘prestigious’ and ‘elite.’ Only later, I realized that the most ‘prestigious’ people are actually quite poor, poor in they have not acquired any compassion or true beauty (ihsan). Very quickly I learned that wealth does not necessarily imply a persons inner qualities. True wealth and beauty are not material or physical, true wealth is in the heart. With clients, I realized the loveliest men are those whom are humble, easy-going and unscathed by the poison of Western-Liberal values. My ex and the Sheik, among others, are the best examples of such men.

Years ago, fresh to the sex industry, I remember an older prostitute who put us younger escorts into perspective. While all of us were chatting together, a newbie escort announced, “I only want to see clients with business suits!” Shortly after, a well-dress client entered, wearing a business suit and carrying a polished leather briefcase. The older prostitute joked, “Don’t get too excited girls. He might be jobless, going for an interview.” In other words, the older prostitute was trying to say that a ‘business suit’ doesn’t really mean anything — it doesn’t mean he will be a worthy client. She was right. A lovely, generous, warm-hearted client can exist in any form, any ethnicity, and any social class — and more importantly, in any type of clothing.

As mentioned in previous posts, some of the most generous clients I have had are those who do not actively showcase their wealth. As well, even regular working or middle-class men can also be generous and lovely. I was once naive enough to believe that a man dressed sharply in a posh business suit was the ideal client. But now, after all these years, I find the business suit quite unappealing. It’s not the actual clothes I despise, but I despise the VALUES associated with the business suit. The ‘business suit’ is symbolic of modern capitalism; It’s the image of condoning unequal profit, greed, competition, exploitation, egotism, ignoring the metaphysical — and even worse, this mentality and it’s associated values are PRAISED and embraced in the West, and increasingly being praised in non-Western societies. Sadly, so many people are seduced by these material values, which they consider important and worthy. This reminds me of a quote from the book, “Tuesday’s With Morrie,” below:

Image

It’s also very sad to see so-called Muslims exhibit and condone these traits of business ‘professional’ ethics, which is completely the antithesis of Islam:

Image

Now, of course, not all men who wear suits are the heartless, soulless persons with no values that I am depicting. And equally, not all businesses have inhumane objectives. Of course not. The business suit has become a norm, and indeed some whom wear it do not subscribe to the values it currently symbolizes. Some have to wear this business attire out of conformity, or expectation, but it does not define who they are. Here lies the importance of not judging on first appearances. We all wear facades and labels, but the trueness of individual is much deeper.

I, too, portray myself in ways that can be misleading. I advertise myself under all the terms of “elite,” “high-class,” “upscale,” “exclusive.” These terms could easily signify that I’m arrogant, pretentious, shallow, etc. These terms have very vague meanings, yet I only use them to market myself accordingly to the norms of escorting world. Sadly, the terms ‘elite’ and ‘high-class’ are the accepted descriptors for prostitutes who are allegedly physically beautiful, clean, well-mannered and can provide good service. If I don’t use these words, then clients might assume I’m the opposite of those qualities. It’s ironic. Subscribing to the term ‘elite’ does not make me a better lover, nor does it make me better person. In essence, good companionship and good sex HAS no class, no discriminant.

Like many odd reasons, our society embraces this notion of being “exclusive” — excluding others, and being only available to eligible persons. This makes me feel sad. I wish I didn’t have to use these arrogant terms for myself when advertising. However, although I would love to be more inclusive with whom I see,  I have to be exclusive when advertising. The unfortunate reality is that there are many “bad” seeds of clientele that exist in the escorting world. If I am too inclusive, then I make myself vulnerable to danger, undesirables, the heartless, etc. I do not like to give the impression that I’m “exclusive” in an arrogant way. I’m only “exclusive” to protect myself from the ills of the sex industry. In essence, I welcome decent, kind, warm-hearted men from ALL social statures so long they can pay for my services. I see that many “high-class” escorts misuse their imagined status — they develop an ego. Some escorts mistakenly assume that being ‘elite’ makes them better, and also believe that ‘elite’ men implies better clients. I made this mistake too, but very quickly realized I was wrong in my assumption. Judging clients on their heart and intentions is much more wise than judging on their level of material prestige. But one only learns with experience…

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “Prostitution: Elitism & Why I Despise the “Man in a Business Suit.”

  1. John

    I always enjoy reading your posts and your unique perspective on the escorting business. Putting aside your thoughts on emotion, relationships and men, I notice that a distinct anti-capitalist bias permeates your writing. Let me make an ardent defense of capitalism especially in regards to my personal experiences. You make references to greed, avarice, and corruption as motivators for businessmen/women as if governments with power over the individual have no greed for power or for more of the money that you earn. First and foremost capitalism is a self correcting system in that bad or poorly run companies will not continue to attract customers. They will go out of business because competitors will seek their business with better products and services at a cheaper price. As proof of this the S & P 500 index of the largest 500 companies in America was first formulated in 1957. How many of the original 500 companies are still on the list? The answer is less than 75. New and innovative companies like Apple, Microsoft, and WalMart (companies that didn’t exist 40 years ago) now dominate the index. The most important aspect of capitalism is one of liberty. In a market where government does not award a monopoly to any given company, there is competition. A company cannot coerce me to buy their product or service; they must persuade me. They must offer a product or service that is superior to their competitors. Not so with government. Government has no competition. If you owe money to a company they cannot come to your home and arrest you at the point of a gun (at least in America). Government has the police power to do this. This is why I fear government power and not corporate greed. Individual liberty and personal freedom go hand in hand with the economic system of capitalism. In America the right to own private property is as important to freedom as is freedom of speech for if the individual doesn’t have the right to own property then it is the state that owns all of the property (like the old Soviet Union). No economic system has elevated more people out of poverty, or led to more innovative advancements in industry and science than has capitalism. This does not mean that there are not great disparities in income or wealth in this system. But the people at the bottom are so much better off than under other systems. Take my own personal experience. I moved to another state when I was 24 years old and had almost nothing to my name. I had no job, no skills, and no friends or relatives in town. But I worked hard and had ambition to succeed. I learned about companies and how to invest in them to help build wealth for myself. At the age of 58 I was able to retire with a net worth of more than $1million. Only in a capitalist system that allows private ownership of property and a free market could someone like me from a very modest background achieve. this. The only other way to grow wealth like this is to either own your own business (of which most fail initially), or to win the lottery. The more a government moves away from free market capitalism the more the state takes a role in owning and running companies. Centrally planned economies have a dismal track record. The bigger and more powerful the state becomes the smaller becomes the individual in that the individual has much less freedom. How could one have more freedom in a socialistic state where most of the money you earn is taken by the state in taxes and the worker becomes, in effect, a slave to the state. I know that these views do not comport with yours, but I wanted to express my opinion. Thank you.
    John Mode
    Glendale, Arizona, USA

    • escortdiary

      @ John

      I appreciate your comment, but your outlook is very narrow. Your mentality is rather typical given your circumstances, so I am not actually surprised. You consider your own experience a ‘success’ so therefore you assume capitalism has merit. Yet in the process, you blindly ignore the global and even local implications.

      I know you meant well, but you really are missing the broader picture. I don’t blame you, because most people do not actually have anything to contrast capitalism too (as the whole world is under this model now — thanks to colonialism and modern day imperialism). Sure, many Westerners travel and apparently see the world, but it’s hard to contrast given that most of the world has been economically and politically restructured into a neo-liberal, capitalistic model. Your comment indicates that you, like many, are unable to see what structures existed before capitalism. I, however, can contrast, because I have seen the differences with my own eyes and experiences. I have witnessed the projection of capitalism onto my own culture. My Mother and her families are a living example. Also, I saw the change during my travels to the ‘developing’ world when I was younger, where capitalism was not prominent yet. My own Mother comes from a self-sustainable village, where the form of social organization was VASTLY different than it is today. Sadly, Western imperialism has forcefully converted traditional forms of social organization into modern capitalism. Now, the land of our ancestors is corporately owned, and the remaining local people have been transformed from being self-sufficient into wage labourers (and labourers in the ‘developing’ world are severely exploited and used for their cheap labor thanks to the greedy demands of capitalism). If you are wondering why so many immigrants are coming to the West, it’s because imperialism has ruined their former systems of social organization, thus forcing them to look for better economic opportunities elsewhere.

      You wrote: “No economic system has elevated more people out of poverty, or led to more innovative advancements in industry and science than has capitalism.”

      There are just too many problems with the statements you gave. For one, you adhere to the idea that current technological innovations and science are ‘great’ things. I strongly suggest you ask: who really benefits from all these so-call glorious technological innovations? Are you aware that the ‘luxury’ we have in the West is at the expense of the non-West? Clearly, you have no idea that people are in dire poverty and war due to feeding the greed of global capitalism. It is this economic system which has created poverty, ever increasingly.

      Secondly, you’re idea of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ also shows you adhere to the typical discourses (propagated ideas) of what “freedom” and “libery” means. People are fed with this idea that they are liberated and free, only to be completely unaware of how much their lives are strategically crafted to reproducing the conditions for capitalism. You’re own success is simply not the case for anyone who just wants to “work hard.” Further, what you consider “success” in material wealth is your own perspective. Not everyone subscribes to your perception of a worthy life.

      I don’t expect you to understand what I am trying to say, because it seems you’ve only lived within the same paradigm of thought. For a variety of reasons, I have been exposed to different ways of thinking, different ways of conceptualization. I have been both wealthy and poor, from the West and non-West, so my perspective is deeply shaped by these contrasts. I am still learning, and always will be. I hope sincerely that you open your eyes.

      I am sorry if what I wrote comes off harsh, but please know this is an issue deeply held in my heart. After all, it is under these conditions that myself and so many other women have been lured to sell themselves.

      Sahar

      • John

        Thank you so much, Sahar for your reply. Your reply was by no means harsh, but instead was very honest and I appreciate that. I enjoy a spirited debate that is also respectful of each other. I will attempt to answer your many critiques of my email.

        First of all I should ask you about the part of the world in which you reside. Is it considered “non Western”? If, in your world, capitalism is not practiced then what economic system is operative in your country, feudalism, serfdom, socialism or Marxism? You do say that the entire world is under the capitalist model and people do not have any other system with which to contrast it to. However your critique of capitalism requires an alternative economic system that answers your criticisms. If one doesn’t exist then maybe you have some ideas for a better one.

        I will admit that in the developing world capitalism has altered the lives of many people which may affect their culture and old ways of doing things. Although Japan adopted capitalism and they still have their unique culture this is much different in many ways from American culture.

        One of your criticisms is that the luxury we enjoy in the West is at the expense of those in the non West. People are in dire poverty because of the greed of capitalism. This is one of the standard canards from the Left in its critique of capitalism; that capitalism is a zero sum game. One dollar that I make is at the expense of someone else who is one dollar poorer. This would be a valid criticism if the economic pie was always stagnant and the same size. But capitalism is a dynamic system and when new businesses or industries are created the economic pie is expanded; growth benefits everyone.

        Greed is another common critique of capitalism. And true, in capitalism everyone is pursuing their own personal self interest. But in the process everyone benefits because of this. Let me give you an example. I sold equipment for years. I wanted to be successful and worked very hard to satisfy my customers. My “greed” for success benefited my customers because they benefited from my hard work as did my company. As I produced more orders more people were given jobs to produce the units I sold. If I didn’t satisfy my customers with good products and services I would be replaced by a competitor. All of these transactions in capitalism are freely made between parties (who may completely disagree politically) without government coercion because they each see a benefit to themselves.

        I do understand what you are trying to say regarding material wealth and the acquiring of wealth. There is much more to wealth in life and this would include the spiritual realm. But under free market capitalism one has the freedom to either pursue wealth or not. And I have read books from people like yourself who were brought up in the third world. Dinesh D’Souza is an American immigrant from India. He would probably understand your third world perceptions much better than me. In his book “What’s So Great About America” he goes into great detail on these matters that we are discussing. As D’Souza says in his book in many parts of the third world virtue is highly valued but virtue is something that is not, necessarily, freely chosen because it is forced (or coerced) virtue and virtue not freely chosen is not virtue at all. In America virtue is true because it is freely chosen. And part of this virtue is charity and America is the most charitable nation on earth because of our values and the economic system of capitalism. I also understand that in some cultures individual liberty and freedom is not as highly valued as it is in America.

        Thank you for reading this. The main reason I read your diary is because I love your evocative style of writing regarding your romantic experiences and your profession. I don’t read it to comment on economics!! I have known (and seen) one escort for the last 14 years and have gained a unique perspective into the inner thoughts of women in this business from your writings. Keep writing please. I truly enjoy you.
        Sincerely,
        John Mode
        Glendale, Arizona, USA

      • escortdiary

        Thank you again John for commenting

        But again, I still feel you really have a narrow, incorrect sense of current global trends. And I only wish you could begin to comprehend what I was trying to say. Many of the statements you said only shows me that your understanding is far from critical.

        To clarify: I live in the West. I was raised in the West. I don’t have a “third world” perception — I have a perception of being an “in between” person — seeing different angles of living in a capitalistic, consumer society and contrasting that with other cultural forms of social organization. As I said, the elders of my family were raised in vastly different social structure that was self-sustainable (there was no need for socialism or government welfare). It’s hard for you to comprehend this kinship form of social organization, because most Westerners only read these things in books. There are many different forms of social organization besides being “Left” or socialist, liberal, etc. Again, you are only viewing the world within the same paradigm.

        Everyone does not benefit from capitalism, only a small percent. Just the fact you can say that, given the terrible conditions of poverty within the United States, I’m rather shocked at your blind ignorance. I will not even get into the arguments of how race, gender, and citizenship also VASTLY influences how far ones “hard work” will get them in this system. For you, as a white male (I am assuming) this system works to your benefit, as you have the right gender, citizenship and skin color.

        You have seen perhaps a small minority who benefited in a material sense, but you cannot see the wider scope of it’s damage (from destroying cultures to destroying the earth). And sadly, there are non-western people who also share your narrow outlook on capitalism, who also fail to understand the propagated terms, such as “freedom.” The Indian author you mentioned is one of many ‘colored’ people who are part of the neo-imperialist project — it’s VERY naive to assume that one Indian man’s account has the ‘expertise’ to explain the entire culture of the “third world.” Sadly, it’s become an American trend to rely on these so-called ‘native’ informants as reliable sources on other parts of the world. Dinesh D’Souza might have brown skin, but his ideology is heavily “white” (Western). Many great academics have written about this, where individuals from the “third world” have essentially internalized the European “liberal” and “freedom” ideologies. Franz Fenon wrote this in “Black Skin, White Masks” and more recently Iranian professor Hamid Dabashi wrote about this in “Brown Skin, White Masks.”

        I don’t expect you to understand what I am trying to say, because you seem stuck within the same paradigm of thought. Anyway, there is no point to continue this argument. Again, I apologize for my harshness, but ignoring how this system has severely marginalized so many people is not acceptable.

  2. It is always nice to read your thoughts. I feel your heart in your words. Blessings sweetie

  3. Aphrodite

    Dear Sahar, I’m happy you’re writing again.
    I haven’t had numerous experiences with ‘men in suit’. But on a certain occasion I’ve also met a man who answers your description perfectly.
    He was handsome, quite young, and in a suit, typically ‘upscale’ and ‘high class’.
    I remember giving this pretentious man compliments about that, while a few minutes later I was so scared of his behaviour. Never been seriously abused, but after that moment, I felt quite ‘raped’, because before there hadn’t been a man who treated me so disrespectful. So I totally agree with you to never judge a man by his appearance and his suit. 😉

    • escortdiary

      Thanks for sharing that dear.

      Sorry to hear about that incident, and glad you learnt not to judge solely by appearances.

  4. key4adream

    I stay outside from the capitalism critic , but I agree at all on the general moral sense of this great post:: cloth doesn’t make the monk, like an ancient italian quotation says.

    Thank you

  5. Ana

    Greetings, Sahar! it’s so refreshing to see you writing again! I peeped your critique of John’s stance on capitalism. it really does just reek of white male privilege. As a young woman of color, I would probably have to work 4x as hard to get where he is. The fact that so many people like me have to work at low end service jobs is disheartening, which is why I resorted to escorting in the first place (and may end up going back in it again). And I know you’ve heard this many times before, but you really should consider writing a book!

    • John

      Ana, I am compelled to respond to your statement that a woman of color would have to work 4 times as hard to achieve what a man achieves. In my previous job I sold medical equipment. I was never in the top 10 in sales but was a consistent performer and was usually in the top half in the sales standings. I did win a sales trip one year. For about 5 years the top salesperson in our company was a woman. She was a phenomenal worker and probably made about $300,000 per year. Additionally throughout most of my career most of the best paid salespeople in our company were women, including many of “color”. In my 16 years with this company more than half of the top 10 performers were consistently women and as a result they were also the top income earners in the company with most earning well over 6 figures annually. I also have a very good friend who I have known for over 30 years. She has no college degree but through determination, diligence and hard work landed a job as a pharmaceutical rep. She has been doing this for over 20 years and always looked to improve her position by seeking better job opportunities. She now works for a Swiss pharmaceutical company, is one of the top salespeople in the country (USA) and makes over $200,000 per year excluding bonuses. People who constantly whine or complain that they cannot get ahead because of their sex or skin color should look to these people as examples of success. Opportunity, at least in America, is there for the taking regardless of sex or race. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; the ethnic group in America with the highest per capita income, highest test scores in school, and highest education are Asian Americans, not whites. Also studies have shown (and published in the Wall Street Journal) that women, on the whole, make less than men because they 1) take more time off from work for child rearing, 2) are less likely to choose high risk and dangerous jobs which pay more, 3) as physicians women choose specialties that allow more time to spend with family as opposed to men, 4) and women tend to go into careers like education rather than engineering. Women have different interests than men which determines their career path in many instances. In sales positions women get paid exactly the same percentage commission as men.
      Thank you for reading.
      John

  6. Staying out capitalism critic is an better idea. and the blog is really very good . sharing this type of incident happening or knowledge is not so easy but the hands up to you dear. i am an escort and i loved it.

  7. John

    I agree, Matthew Trott, that discussions regarding economics should not be the focus of this blog. This is not why I started reading it, but I had to offer an alternative to Sahar’s constant references to the evils of capitalism and “colonialism”. Hopefully she will stick to her escort experiences and cease ruminating on economics.
    Regards,
    John Mode

    • escortdiary

      @John

      Here is a very delayed reply:

      The fact you can dismiss colonialism and it’s terrifying implications only gives further evidence to your narrow, perhaps even inhumane, mentality. The fact that you feel I, a prostitute, has no mandate to discuss topics such as economics also shows your narrowness. I will indeed talk and discuss anything that affects myself and those around me. Current economics is a major factor why so many people are marginalized.

      There is no point to discuss your heavily misleading and incorrect assessment of capitalism. As I had alluded to in previous messages: It is clear that you are not an intellectual, and that your source of knowledge is literally spewing the word of dominant discourses. After all, you are getting your information from sources that are NOT critical (ie: popular media sources). Of course, I am assuming you won’t even understand the concept of ‘dominant discourse’ given what you wrote previously.

      Please do not bother to continuing proving your point, as I will simply ignore it. I surely hope one day you’ll stop being a human ‘drone’ and learn to critique the discourses that have deeply influenced your incorrect assessment.

      Sahar.

      • John

        “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

        1.Person A makes claim X.
        2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
        3.Therefore A’s claim is false.

        The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).” The foregoing quote was copied and pasted from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

        Sahar you committed a critical error in debate by using an ad hominem attack. 1. I made some assertions and claims, 2. You say that I am “narrow, inhumane, not an intellectual, and do not understand the concept of dominant discourse and that also I am a human drone.”, 3. therefore you assert that my claim is false. Not a good argument on your behalf.
        John Mode

      • escortdiary

        @John

        Like you, I have also studied the essentials of critical thinking (which is introductory Philosophy). In that sense, yes you are correct that I attacked your character other than your argument. However, there was NO valid argument in your previous messages. There was no substantial, scholarly evidence to your claims. Following correct structures of arguments (premises and conclusions) does not mean it is a valid argument. Sources, such as the “Wall Street Journal” are not critical, nor scholarly sources. Any social-sciences academic would not accept such bias, uncritical sources of knowledge. So while you may understand the fundamentals of arguments and fallacies, you have yet to learn about what is a reliable source, what is a discourse, etc.

        Considering you have an inkling to reading, then I highly suggest you read up on Foucault’s “Governmentality” to understand the concept of discourse.

  8. Jian Hsueh

    Its always nice reading your post. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing a wonderful information.

  9. YES john you said absolutely right about escort experiences.

  10. John

    One more thing I didn’t address in my last post Sahar. You said the following: “Sources, such as the “Wall Street Journal” are not critical, nor scholarly sources. Any social-sciences academic would not accept such bias, uncritical sources of knowledge. So while you may understand the fundamentals of arguments and fallacies, you have yet to learn about what is a reliable source..”

    I was thinking about a response to this specific charge while driving home tonight. Most of what I learned about capitalism and the benefits thereof came from the following scholars;
    Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics. who wrote the popular book, “Free To Choose” and also has many videos from the 80’s on Youtube.
    Frederic Bastiat, the selected works of Frederic Bastiat, the Economics of Freedom, What Your Professors Won’t Tell You.
    F.A. Hayek who wrote the famous treatise, “The Road to Serfdom”
    Ayn Rand, the famous philosopher of Objectivism and who wrote, “Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal” as well as “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”.
    Prof. Thomas Sowell, who is a professor of economics at Stanford University and has written many books on Marxism (and who was a Marxist as a younger man) and economics. A good book of his is “Basic Economics”.
    Do these works not count as “scholarly works” in your opinion? To be scholarly must they comport with your worldview only?

    I have also read some of Karl Marx but his works are very dull and dense reading and very difficult to get through. I also read “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, at one time the most popular American history text in American universities. He was an avowed Marxist and this book is basically a Marxist screed and diatribe on the evils of the founding and settling of America.
    After the 9-11 attacks I tried to learn as much as I could about the Muslim world and the first book I read was “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis, the acknowledged Western expert on the history of Islam and the Middle East. I am 61 years old Sahar and have spent a lifetime reading and studying military history, investing, male/female relationships and many other topics of interest. I read the introduction to a book you suggested, Franz Fenon’s book, “Black Skin, White Masks” and see a particular theme that I probably would disagree with.
    Sincerely,
    John Mode

    • escortdiary

      @John

      The names you mentioned (Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc) are all names I am familiar with and have studied. I was introduced to them to understand their views within their context, and also to study the limitations of their Eurocentric theories. Firstly, why should only Eurocentric views be considered a ‘solution’ for the entire world? How do you justify that these scholars have the right and authority to explain the outcome of other countries? It seems that you are uncomfortable that many silenced voices are finally speaking out after decolonization, where suddenly Eurocentric views become critiqued and challenged.

      Let me state here:
      1. I do not propose there is a ‘one’ all-encompassing model that the world should follow. This ‘solution for all’ mentality is the problem. I am nostalgic about the idea of human diversity, yet the current dynamics of globalization is more homogenizing than diversifying. Capitalism is globalization, so you are saying it’s OK to forcefully project these ideals onto all? I don’t think the damage can be undone. I don’t think people can revert to the diverse forms of social organization that existed before global capitalism. This is the first time in human history, thanks to technology, where ideas and politics are being implemented (via coercion) on a global scale. Yes, there has been international trade since ancient times, yet no where near the same scale. I am shocked that you cannot even see the arrogance of projecting any ideology, BY FORCE, onto others. Current technological innovation only allows this to continue, to further exploit.

      2. I am not a Marxist, so please stop trying to imply that this is a debate between Marxism and Capitalism (fallacy of black & white thinking). Marxism sounds nice in theory, yet it makes the mistake of assuming the entire world can be fashioned into one model. Again, I do not support the idea that there should be an “all-encompassing” solution for the whole world.
      3. In premodern times (before colonialism and the industrial revolution), there was a rich diversity of different ways that cultures organized themselves. Again, my own culture was organized in a fashion that had very little connection to state politics/government. Yet with colonialism, my ancestors culture was transformed into a nation-state (thank you imperialism/colonialism). It’s social organization of kinship subsistence was changed into wage labour in a capitalistic system (thank you to coercive institutions like IMF or the World Bank for strategically creating debtor nations). The old traditions of collectivism and cultural structures has now been undermined by growing individualism and consumerism. So, who benefits from this? Who benefits when the culture has died? Who benefits when people are less concerned about their community/families and more concerned with bettering themselves? What happens in a society where people suddenly have no connection to their land, their community or traditions? You may not be able to understand this, because you have never experienced the beauty of having a connection to a different culture that is not based on materialism.
      4. Bernard Lewis is a well-known Orientalist. He, like other Orientalists, is known for having a misleading view of the Middle East and Islamic societies. After 9/11 a great amount of literature emerged to curious readers to ‘know’ the Middle East. Writers along the same lines of Bernard Lewis were promoted in Western societies to paint a certain impression of the Islamic world that coincides with the dominant discourse (aiding false stereotypes of Islam and it’s followers). Orientalist accounts, like Bernard Lewis’s, does NOT paint an accurate picture of Islamic societies. What you are reading, instead, is the authors own worldview.

      As I had said before, I have seen the impact of capitalism with my own eyes. I have seen the projecting of industrialization onto non-industrialized worlds. You, however, have not. Reading books, alone, does not tell the whole story. That is why, simply, that I am concerned, while you are content. I do not want to discuss further because it seems our differing life experiences have shape our outlooks. I do not expect that you can understand my plight, as you have not experienced it yourself.

      • John

        I agree with you Sahar; Eurocentric views should not be forced on other cultures. Those cultures should decide for themselves what kind of economic systems under which they live. In a totalitarian system that decision is made by a dictator. In a democracy (if you believe in democracies) that decision is made by the people. Just because an idea or concept originated in Europe by white males doesn’t automatically invalidate the merits of that idea. If the ideas of freedom, individual liberty, free market capitalism and self determination originated in Asia I would still embrace those ideas.

        Colonization is a term for what has been happening between cultures for hundreds of centuries. Conquest and war is nothing new in human history. I think it is just part of human nature. One culture will overtake and conquer another and impose their values on that culture. Throughout history this has been the norm. Up until modern times the vanquished had to suffer at the hands of the conquerors. Many were enslaved. But sometimes a more advanced culture did the conquering and actually (on balance) advanced more inferior cultures. What do I mean by inferior? The Roman Empire invaded and conquered the tribes of, what is now, Britain. At the time the various tribes or clans were very primitive not even having an alphabet or written language. The Romans, in their brutality (and they were very brutal), introduced these things and many other advancements to these peoples. As an aside, I think in this analysis we must acknowledge the dark side of man. There is a good book on this topic titled…”The Dark Side of Man, Tracing the Origins of Male Violence” by Michael P. Ghiglieri. Alexander the Great, the Persians, Babylonians, the great Muslim Empires, and many other ancient cultures did what the ancient Romans did too. Each time another culture was invaded and conquered then the values of the conquering forces were imposed on the vanquished. This is not unique to Europeans. I am sure that if some of the leading countries in the Islamic world had the overwhelming military power that the USA has that they would conquer much of the world and impose their values on the cultures that they conquered. It is just that the latest of these conquering forces was at the hands of the old British Empire. I know you will disagree with this, but on balance the British Empire made the world a better place.

        You are right that technology has changed everything and made it easier for the world to become more homogenized. A well known British actor, Michael York, said that America has colonized the world through Hollywood and there is a lot of truth to that. But I think that we have become complacent in accepting the fact that things will always be the way they are today. Civilizations rise and fall. The veneer of modern technological civilization is very thin. You say that the impact of global capitalism (and you don’t like this impact) cannot be reversed. I disagree. Human society has only recently been a linear progression. There is no guarantee that this will always be so. Stasis was the norm for most of human history. People have taken for granted that we will always have a plentiful source of energy, electricity, clean drinking water and all of the benefits that modern technology has done to increase life spans and make life easier. But eliminate these things and we will regress back to a more primitive existence that has been the norm for most of human history. Initially there would be chaos but some kind of order would eventually emerge. In this case society could revert back to what you dream about. But the historical norm has been tyranny over the masses characterized by a brief and brutal life for most.

        I, unlike you, like what the world has become because of the influence of Eurocentric thinking. Much of the world has freely adopted it because it results in a better life for more people. It is not without its faults though. No system is without faults and man is deeply flawed. Additionally I do not have your life experiences, nor you mine, but I liked getting your perspective on these things. I enjoy debating those with whom I disagree and I think that I have presented my views in a respectful manner. Thank you.
        John Mode

      • Emerald

        Dear Sahar (& John / Matthew),
        First of all I read your blog because I’m interested in your thoughts and points of views. Not only regarding escorting but your world view in general. Everybody is entitled to have his/her own views and based on culture, upbringing, experiences and education such individual views tend to differ among people.
        That being said I must confess I do see Sahar’s point. Being a mixed European descendant of a country’s colonial past and having been fortunate enough to travel a lot all over the globe and to have lived half of my life (some 25 years) abroad in the so-called ‘less developed’ regions of SE Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, I witnessed the mainly negative effects of centuries of Eurocentric thinking.
        One cannot deny the facts that particularly from the early beginnings of Mercantilism Eurocentric thinking and concepts increasingly created a world geared to stimulate (unsustainable) consumerism, gaining wealth at the expense of others, forcing alien political system upon them and creating the foundation for numerous additional conflicts.
        One cannot deny that even when global wealth reached an all-time high in 2013, the inequality between individuals also remains high. Apart from the fact that the current monetary and financial system is based on ‘hot air’ and certainly not reflecting realistic values, the distribution of this wealth is only beneficial to a few: the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of this total wealth, where the richest 10% hold 86% of the world’s wealth and the top 1% alone account for 46% of global assets*.
        A rather stark contrast in my opinion and one may, should even, wonder if such a distribution is fair and sustainable or a ground for continuous conflicts.
        * The data originate from a recent Credit Suisse Research Institute Report which can be downloaded from https://www.credit-suisse.com/nl/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-suisse-research-institute/publications.html
        Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Eurocentric monetary / financial / economic and speculative aspect is seriously flawed: ample examples of major financial, economic societal crises (bubbles) can be found from the early 1600 up till the present day. Where in early history the effects of such crises where more or less regional in nature they are truly global nowadays.
        And the sad thing being that we must keep this current economic system intact due to the global interdependencies this Eurocentric belief-system created. If the current system can’t be saved with constant and rigorous finetuning not just 1 civilization will collapse: it will be the end of humankind as we know it.
        It is a well know saying that “power corrupts”. And particularly arrogant people who measure their wealth by means of the number of zero’s on their bank accounts seem to be prone to the human weakness of consuming and ‘enjoying’ life without much regard to the future of humankind. As long as they have the money they feel entitled to use it in any way and style they deem fit for themselves (which also includes donating it to a so-called good cause). More often than not however, those people tend to turn a blind eye and act as if they are smart / know it all / can buy it all and in fact pressure others to comply to this system whereby the amount money becomes synonymous with the amount of wealth, status, power and influence.
        And I can totally understand why someone with a keen knowledge of human nature and behavior may find such money-generated behavior very superficial and shallow and regrets the fact that this belief- and value-system even seems to become the thing to strive for within societies and cultures which previously were based on completely different values.
        Correct me if I’m wrong Sahar. But I reckon you tried to show that the nasty fact that this Eurocentric value-system became so deeply embedded within current societies has been a result not so much of free choice but of centuries of imposing a value-system upon others, in such a way that if one did not comply or align with the ‘norm’ one could hardly survive.
        Please continue to share your thoughts on whatever topic you like to share with the world. Though I deeply respect the thoughts and views of my teachers in life and university, I also admire the views of people with knowledge of human behavior based not only on theories but extensive real-life experience as well.
        Kind regards

  11. Brittany

    Hello, I’m a novice escort having difficulty catching a break in the industry. I know your very busy but would compensate you to mentor me. I’ve been following your blog for some time now. Please return contact if your moved to. Thanks in advance.

    • escortdiary

      What do you want to know? I can try to help, and compensation is not neccessary

      • Brittany

        I want to trade in dancing for ads but whenever I’ve posted on eros I barely get any hits. I have a few pro photos but none with my face. I want to know what I could be doing to get more hits. I’m not greedy at all but it seems like my city doesn’t like me in ads but I’m very popular at my club.

  12. YankeeDoodle

    Sahar,

    I’m intrigued an flabbergasted. Somehow you were able to weave an erotic story/confession in such a poignant manner that your obviously beautiful soul is shining through. I can’t decide whether or not you are an escort and a fantastic writer, or just a fantastic writer…but either way, please don’t be a stranger 🙂

    Yankee

  13. Jay

    You make me proud to be a woman Sahar, you classy intelligent lady. It’s no wonder your clients fall head over heels. I wish you all the best in life. A beautiful soul. x

  14. shinjitsu

    Isn’t it a bit of a contradiction to denounce capitalism (the pursuit of wealth), but prostitution is the pursuit of money. Men as a collective whole created the ideal economic situation to lure women into prostitution. Women will never have equality as long as one woman is selling sex. Escort is only a word used for sanitizing the sale of sex. They should just rename their businesses “vaginas for rent” then people can wake up to what the industry really is … paid rape of the desperate. You can consent to be raped in exchange for money just as an officer worker can consent to be worked to death.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s