Some of you are aware that I appeared on a National Geographic documentary that first aired in February. Now the rest of you are aware. Once again, my brush with mainstream media is generally negative. Eventually I’ll learn.

natgeo 2009

NatGeo spoke to me in April 2009 about appearing on their Taboo series. One of their episodes was going to cover sex work. Though I spoke for 90 minutes on the phone with Kate Witchard and emailed with her, they decided not to use me. This was right before I was beginning my travels and I pitched the idea to her, but she told me National Geographic wasn’t interested in following a working escort around the world.

Utter waste of time. I don’t take kindly to having my brain picked for free. (Shortly after, someone whom I suspect was producing the Belle de Jour series wanted to do that too so I quoted a price and never heard back.)

natgeo 2012

Last summer I was approached by NatGeo again. I was not interested. Daniele Anastasion, the producer, assured me this was a stand-alone documentary focusing on the US and the legal issues surrounding prostitution. After back and forth emails, I agreed to a 5 minute phone call that turned into 45. It seemed okay and I agreed to it. Of course they weren’t going to pay me a dime. (It’s a documentary! They wouldn’t do something so icky as pay for interviews!) No makeup provided either. But it seemed like it would be intelligent. It’s National Geographic, after all.

We settled on a shooting date. They weren’t thrilled about having to come to Dallas but since they weren’t paying me to show up anywhere else, Dallas was it. They wanted to shoot an interview — which was the point. They also wanted to shoot “B-roll,” which is silent footage that shows up in the background with interviewed voiceovers. This is where it started getting to be a bit much.


They wanted to shoot the interview in my home, so that I would be “more comfortable.” Yes, having a camera crew in my private sanctuary in order to show it to the world makes me comfortable. We finally agreed on a hotel at the airport. (I’ve spent a lot of my adult life in hotel rooms, I’m comfy there.)

They wanted to interview a client. No. I gave them the name of someone they could interview by phone but apparently that wasn’t enough for them.

All photos: Dallas PinUp MUAH: LaDonna Stein

They wanted to film me preparing to go to an appointment. No, but I was willing to do my getting-ready routine for the camera anyway. Not good enough, this is a documentary and putting on eye shadow for a fictitious client is somehow different than putting on eyeshadow for a real client. (For the record, my getting-ready for a client involves the exact same things I do for getting ready to head out for a nice evening with any human; though these days it often involves packing a suitcase and forgetting things.)

They wanted to spend days filming slices of my life. Well, my life is boring. I run, I eat, I sleep, I sit at the computer. On fun days, I eat lunch out and go grocery-shopping. I read and sometimes watch movies. When possible, I get to spend time with people I like. Sure, you could film all this but who’d want to watch?? I threw out the best possibilities for shooting and most of them didn’t pass muster (my life is boring).

Then I got the great idea to do a photo shoot! Hey, this is something escorts do that “normal” people don’t! My regular photographer did not wish to participate. My other photographer, Shoshana of Dallas PinUp and a longtime friend, was game. We planned an awesome shoot which yielded some great pix. I hired a professional makeup artist, LaDonna Stein, to do my makeup for both days of filming ($75/day). I will hire her again and again — I’ve never looked so good in my life. Washing my face was a crime.

So it was settled. Film in September. One day of interview and B-roll at the airport, the next day the real-live photo shoot and B-roll of that. Yay!

the interview

My publicist and I had requested a list of the topics/questions we were going to discuss. I wanted to be prepared. The B-roll was not important to me (they were only concerned with how much footage of me they could shoot, seeming to think I was willing to spend days being filmed for free); the interview was everything. I only speak for myself but let’s be honest, if you’re going on TV as a sex worker, many of those watching will assume you speak for a lot of sex workers — which is sometimes true if I say things like “Most sex workers don’t like [whatever]” or “Most sex workers like the New Zealand model of decriminalization.” Or who knows, the viewers might assume I don’t represent any sex workers at all whatsoever because I don’t look like their stereotype and that I only speak for myself anyway.

I was hoping to impress with my knowledge and articulate answers. Beth and I prepped, including the usual phone calls where she would mock-interview me. Part of her job is to try and trip me up with trick questions or ask the questions she knows makes me squirm (she’s far tougher than any interview I’ve had so far). I had a whole sheaf of notes prepared, with important dates, facts, countries, blah blah blah. I did Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school was my preparation now as a sex worker is far more thorough than anything I ever did back then.

And, frankly, I was kind of hoping that I’d get a little jump in business for all this effort. NatGeo viewers were intelligent, right? This should work. (For the record: not a single one of my TV appearances has led to clients. It is not the medium of choice if you want business. All it does is bring people out of the woodwork, some of whom you know and forgotten, some of whom only think they know you.)

I was hoping it would sell books. Every one of my TV appearances has accomplished this and it was a definite goal of mine.But the books weren’t mentioned on the show, regardless of my pre-interview agreement. Neither was the book’s website mentioned. So NatGeo cut me off at the knees in regards to recouping any of the money I spent on this interview — which was more than just makeup. The whole reason any author does publicity is to sell books and if you prevent them from doing so and don’t pay them for their time, then you have effectively ripped them off. (I have gotten a handful of book sales from this show due to the Google-searching of viewers but not worth it from an overall ROI standpoint.)

Congrats, National Geographic. You’re on my Bad Media-Client list.

the filming

Got up early, ate and knew I probably wouldn’t eat for a while. Got to the photo studio, met LaDonna, was charmed and we chatted as she made me beautiful and took total care of me. I couldn’t afford to drag her along with me but I wished (however she set my makeup to last all day and really she would have been sitting on her thumbs). Drove to the airport and was trying to find Daniele. In the lobby of the hotel I saw this young girl with a cell phone and after a minute, realized it was her. Wow, she was small and looked like a teenager (she’s in her 20s and a professional).

The interview space was set up in a room and we were finally ready to roll. She and I started talking. It was a very chatty interview, her style was extremely conversational. I flubbed a few lines but since this was being recorded, I was allowed to repeat myself. I made some excellent points (and forgot a couple important ones). I convinced the camera and sound man that criminalization was the wrong path. Danielle and I talked for two solid hours. I was hoarse when we finally reached a stopping point.


Lunch break after and we all sat at a table and chatted like normal people. It was fun.

Then the airport B-roll shooting started. Ugh. I was shot in and around the hotel room, on a computer, in the hall, in the airport, in a taxi looping the airport and I think that was it. They wanted me to hang around until dark and shoot me in a bar having a cocktail but honestly, I’d had a camera in my face for the past six hours or so and was totally drained. The knowledge that I was going through all this again tomorrow didn’t help. They finally let me go. I went home, ate food, regretfully washed my face and crashed.

Just as the airport/interview was draining, the photoshoot was just plain fun. LaDonna glammed me up like I’ve never been in my entire life, my dress was amazing, Shoshana created a great set. Things were great, there was a lot of laughter and the B-roll shooting was going okay, but neither Shoshana nor I could keep quiet long enough. Being able to focus on Shoshana instead of where the cameraman was really helped (I normally loathe being on the pointy end of a camera). There was a cat in the studio which was causing me to sneeze and my eyes to water but that was really the worst part of it all.

End of the shoot and we piled into a nearby bar for drinks (yay!!!!) and final good-byes. After the crew left, Shoshana, LaDonna and I went to an eatery to gossip. Shoshana and LaDonna had a photoshoot after, so I went home and stared at myself in the mirror for a while, knowing I could never replicate this on my own.

It was done. Whew.

I was told it would be released in early 2012.

sex for sale: american escort

One morning in February, I woke up, checked my email and got a message from someone saying they’d seen me on NatGeo. Damn. They’d aired it. I wasn’t ready in any way. Despite repeated emails, they didn’t bother letting me know when it was going to air. I was going to promote it via social media and overhaul the book’s website, but nevermind that.

Curious, Beth and I went searching. We found the whole show online. I watched it in horror. The title alone let me know this was not a serious documentary examining criminalization in the US. In fact, they barely mention criminalization or its effects. They don’t bother to figure out that criminalization is the reason for a lot of the pushback they receive when trying to interview agencies.

My initial reactions remain. I have no idea who Mariana Van Zeller is or what she was doing on this show (actually, I still don’t).

That fabulous photoshoot Shoshana did was reduced to a couple seconds onscreen in which nothing is explained — what’s going on and where did that come from?

High heels = prostitute, apparently. I’ve seen fewer heels at a shoe store.

My role was “blink and you’ll miss it,” which was a bit of a relief by the end.

The “undercover” harassment of random agencies in Vegas was nauseating. I have no love for escort/stripper agencies in Vegas but this show actually made me feel sorry for the people who were just running a business and trying to make a buck. First time in history I’ve ever sided with a Vegas agency.

The supposed pimp-daddy in shades interviewed by Mariana appears to be a hobbyist indulging in what’s known as “role-play.” Even Shoshana thought the guy was fake and she doesn’t deal with pimps, hobbyists or agencies.

Sweet and cute Annie Lobert of Hookers for Jesus gets a lot of screen-time even though she hasn’t worked in a while. I can also tell you — as someone who has worked in Vegas and spent a lot of time in casinos — that the working girls aren’t going to be overly-eager to talk to two strange women. I’m not believing this was a “random” encounter. Focusing the “hidden” camera on the one girl’s boobs was completely uncalled for, especially given the victim-y slant of the whole show. Exploitation is exploitation, whether it’s a pimp, client, or “hidden” camera.

What turned my stomach the most was the Vegas escort they interviewed/exploited. Though they obscure her face, at one point they show her site and it was recognizable. Oh no. They shot her going to and from an appointment. Coming back, they had her count out the money on film. My stomach turned. Nonono. Her final bit in the documentary was her lying on the bed afterward, tired, and contemplating her future. [I talked to her after and while she consented to everything, seeing the show without knowing this was upsetting.]

This wasn’t too far away from my final bit, where I’m lying on the hotel bed, pretending to nap (I do a lot of this in hotel rooms), while my voiceover is something about the demands of the job. Great. Next B-roll clip will be some sex worker tying her pantyhose around the shower curtain rod and trying to hang herself.

I knew they’d spent something like ten hours shooting a Vegas stripper onstage and I was curious to see her dance. She got like 10 seconds of dancing and barely more interview-time than I did. I felt sorry for her. Unless she wanted to do a ten hour workout for free that day, this had to suck.

For the record, sex for sale in America happens in a lot more places than Las Vegas. The Vegas industry is not like the industry everywhere. While it would be hard to create an “average picture;” how Vegas functions is different than, say, Dallas, whether you’re a stripper or escort. I imagine NYC is different as well. And San Angelo, TX is probably different as well, though it might be a bit more similar to Dallas than Vegas. Just sayin.

I felt ripped off, for sure. On the other hand, I was also relieved that I didn’t play a more-prominent role in this disaster. The CNBC documentary I did in 2008, while it ruffled some feathers over its display of websites, treated us with a lot more respect overall and had as balanced a view as it’s possible to get with mainstream media. I’m still very happy with that documentary. This effort was not that. Not even close.

What happened? Did an editor get ahold of it? Was this the idea from the beginning? I’m leaning more towards the latter due to the huge amount of Vegas shooting they did, particularly the “undercover” work, how taken they were with Annie Lobert, and how hard they used the Vegas escort to score their own points. Exploitation is exploitation, whether a pimp, client, or a camera with a supposedly “good” name behind it.

Please note: While I’m only expressing my views, I showed this post to Shoshana, LaDonna and the Vegas escort before posting. I have discussed the show with Shoshana and the Vegas escort. All are welcome to comment here anytime if they desire.

28 thoughts on “national geographic: sex for sale

  1. I’m very protective of this industry because I spent 10 wonderful years as a sex worker. So when I see documentaries that give our industry a “black eye”, I get kinda frustrated. Sorry you didn’t have a pleasant interview!

  2. Erika — Nice to hear from you! Mainstream media does NOT give sex work or sex workers a very fair chance to be heard. Sigh.

    I have a friend will only do live interviews, not recorded ones, for this very reason.

  3. Amanda – This all sounds very unfortunate but not surprising. Exploitation is the perfect word. These kinds of shows consistently appear far more interested in confirming the pre-existing attitudes (and prejudices) of the bulk of their viewers than in really challenging them, and much more afraid to insult the cloistered sensibilities of some (especially their advertisers) than the intelligence of others. Had they really discussed the harm caused by the current laws and the case for decriminalization I’d have been shocked, and I think that your second theory sounds very likely. The urges toward conformity and copy-catting in the media (in what gets reported and what doesn’t, formulas and style of shows, sense of self-importance and absorption) seem intense, and probably the further up you go in the food chain of a media company, the more marked this is. I’m sure there are reporters out there somewhere who get quite frustrated at their editors and industry over it.

    You certainly have my respect, though, for your continued efforts and your refusal to play the fool.

  4. I saw posts about this show but after waiting so long for it to load on the computer to watch I decided I had already seen been to this movie and didn’t need to watch it.
    Now after reading your post on it, I’m doubly sure I never need to watch it. Additionally, I see again that getting any bounce from participating in this kind of media never works for us on an organizational nor on a individual professional level.
    Some foundational changes have to occur within the media in how to address people within our industry and this change will only occur if we organize for it.
    I think allot about GLAAD’s work on behalf of gays and lesbians has effected positive images of that population and how our movement needs to embark on the same course of action to make the changes happen in our life time. But unfortunately our movement doesn’t operate from a collective frame work. The every working girl for herself mentality is a byproduct of criminalization and association = they win and we lose, again.

  5. I was wondering what happened with this interview. I remember you mentioning it and for some reason I think I remember a meeting of SWOP-Chicago and Serpent asked if any of us were interested. Clearly, we all said no. That CNBC documentary is the best one, hands down, that I’ve seen from the USAian point of view.

    I agree with Lee, but I’m guessing both an editor got ahold of it and this was what they set out to do in the first place. They probably gave the reporters some a bit of a free hand as far as questions, which is probably why you were featured so little, but ultimately knew what they wanted to present. You aren’t supposed to exist as an escort, after all, actually being as articulate in person as you are in your blog and your books.

    By the way, I LOVE that dress! When I first saw the picture on your site, I was like, “I think I need more feathers in my wardrobe”. And, okay, I read your Personal Update— I don’t understand the mind of a plagiarist, I guess. Your words on your escort website are so YOU, what brain-dead idiot would copy that and think it could apply to them? There’s always going to be some crossover between escorts of similar temperament and I know I made sure that my wording didn’t look like anyone else’s. I’d love to see the appointments you’d get with a Lorem Ipsum site, though. LOL! That’d be hilarious.

  6. Okay, after reading this Mariana Van Zeller’s Facebook page and the tagline for the documentary, they set out to do an exploitation job. Whenever a tagline talks about “the gritty reality”, it’s a biased perspective.

  7. Lee — I should not have been surprised but I was. It was completely NOT what the filming was like. Not at all. If only I were as good an actress during appointments. Not entirely sure that I didn’t play the fool, really. I am on here, after all.

    Your whole first paragraph sums up the problem well.

    Maxine — No, you probably don’t need to watch it. It was only 45 minutes of real run-time and I’ve given the general outline. You’ve seen enough of this to fill in the blanks, can probably even guess how everyone was dressed.

    I’ve often felt the sex worker movement should copy the gay rights movement’s playbook, but there doesn’t seem to be that inclination either. And you’re right, not only does criminalization separate sex workers from each other, it makes it difficult to form a foundation for discourse in the media because we’re criminals and/or victims and not to be taken seriously in either regard.

    Then more stuff like this comes along and it only reinforces the idea that sex workers shouldn’t talk to the media, which means even less voices will be available for the next show that comes calling, which brings down the representation overall. (For instance, the first 10-15 minutes of this show was taken up with the “hidden camera” stuff.)

    It’s an ugly cycle no matter how you look at it. I’m depressing myself now.

    Aspasia — I mentioned it way back when it was shot, then mostly forgot about it. I really thought, you know, National Geographic! Sigh.

    “Gritty reality”…at least it wasn’t the “sticky reality,” though it would’ve been really nice if it had simply been “a documentary OF reality.”

    I made one of the greatest cases EVER for decrim during that interview and it’s wasted (not like I can remember what I said). Would have had much more effect if I could’ve blogged it and had it copied across the Web (might as well use plagiarists for good).

    Only time I’ve worn that dress. I love feathers — which is why I got it — and have never had anything to wear it to. My life is boring, no feathered-dress events.

    As for plagiarists…I give up. I wonder the same thing you do, as does every escort who’s words have been ripped off.

    A Lorem Ipsum site would be so funny! It appeals to the nerd in me. I might actually get some clients but I’d probably just get a lot of dumb emails. Better Lorem Ipsum my email address too. 🙂

  8. Sadly whether it is NatGeo or A&E they go cheap. A&E is the king of public domain pix in a program. Once they say, “we need B-roll” run away (to quote Monty Python). They are looking for ratings and absolutely nothing else. They have to fill the “time” and if it generates a rating blip they are happy. They do not give a rat’s patootie about you, the guys like me, nor anyone else. I haven’t seen the segment but from what you describe, you ended up getting off easy. They could have painted you in a much worse light. Count it up to experience and move on (and NEVER do it again [once bitten, twice shy]).

  9. SRO — Gotcha on the B-roll thing!

    No, they don’t care about me. There really wasn’t a way to paint me in a worse light — I don’t do or say incriminating things in front of a camera. They did the worst they could anyway and made me seem like Sad Hooker. This blog makes me seem like Angry Hooker. My escort site makes me seem like Snobby Hooker.

    I will do media at some point in the future, I know that already. Probably going to follow my friend’s lead and just do live interviews.

    Jon Stewart — in a heartbeat!

  10. Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report would be fantastic.

    I don’t think your site makes you seem like snobby hooker. At least not snobbier than mine! Heh. And you’re not Angry Hooker either. Not in my opinion, anyway. Passionate, yes.

  11. Like always I am very impressed with your work and activism, there is somethings in the documentary I some how glazed over I guess now I am viewing these documentaries in a more critical what is thier agenda view. since in my city there was a new article of an escort and they put it in print without consent of the escort. I am now on this super high of cautiau mode. Everything you pointed out in the documentary got me thinking. the hidden camera was the part that upset me the most, they never once stop to think about the risk we take being out there and sharing the escort service and escort life. if they did care it was never shown in the documentary at all. at least with the cnbc documentary they some how made it seem like they were invited to speak with escorts and this is thier stories. even if the cnbc documentary wasn’t on that agenda it did come across that way this one i didn’t get that feeling at all.

  12. As a client I have been interviewed for television, and also done a chat show. The tv interviews was a disaster, Ok only an hour of my time on the law of prostitution in the UK, the impending law changes. They took 5 seconds for a quote, and aired that before the debate which Julie Bindel started. The quote of course was out of context.

    The radio show was much better, it was live and could not be edited.

  13. Aspasia — Not sure I could handle Colbert, much as I like him. Stewart anytime!!

    My Angry/Snobby Hooker remarks were tongue in cheek, of course. Though plenty will take it literally, I’m sure. Sigh.

    Riley — Exactly. The CNBC documentary did no hidden camera work and shot all of 20 minutes of B-roll of me. They were even more shoe-string than NatGeo but were clearly concerned with covering the issue and the vast majority of the screen-time was taken up by sex workers talking about themselves and their lives. They interviewed academics and tried to cover the idea of sex worker rights. Hard to squeeze all that into an hour but they did.

    NatGeo was clearly going for stereotyped thinking. I guess as someone who does not watch TV I wasn’t aware of this (I didn’t think their Taboo episode was too horrible).

    Since sex workers don’t have rights and aren’t real people, others believe every aspect of our lives should be public. Newspapers are far more likely to run mugshots of arrested sex workers than arrested pedophiles.

    Steve — Thank you for your experience too! I’m sorry you were misquoted right before Julie Bindel came on. Ugh! So much for your hard work in the interview.

    Yes, live is safer. I’m not terribly quick on my feet and that’s something I need to change.

  14. Sorry to hear of all that work for so little gain. But, keep your chin up! It will take a long time to get people to change their minds as long as the media sensationalizes all of the wrong aspects of a topic. Keep trying for without you and other activists it will surely not get anywhere.

  15. Michael — Thanks for the kind words. As you saw in my reply to Maxine, I go round and round on these points.

    There was indeed little gain on the show. None personally. I doubt any in the larger scheme either — they didn’t present anything thought-provoking or insightful.

  16. I saw that documentary when I first started researching sex work. (Anthropology major). Even with the very little amount of knowledge I had of sex workers, it felt disturbing. Defining a person by their job is disrespectful. I have never seen them do that with any other industry, those shows always go to the home and meet the family.
    Anyway, have you seen any documentaries about sex work that DO take a respectful route?

  17. Me — 🙂

    Jennifer — Nice to hear from you! I’m glad your BS meter is working.

    “I have never seen them do that with any other industry, those shows always go to the home and meet the family.”

    While yes, we do tend to be defined by our job; you can also understand WHY sex workers aren’t keen to have a camera crew invade their home and family.

    I honestly don’t know of any US documentaries that I’d recommend. The CNBC Dirty Money one is very good, though I don’t know what you’re looking for. I haven’t seen the Australian TV show “Satisfaction” but have heard very good things about it.

  18. Hey Mate

    Im sorry this was not what you hoped for. Unfortunately the editors and producers of these shows are essentially looking for “ratings” and as such the pieces were edited together to show what was Titalating and sensational and showed the viewpoint of the director/editor of the piece. The days of Nate Geo producing unbiased and informative documentary are long gone. There are NO staff photographers left with the magazine. they are all contractors. The fee for getting a cover of Nat Geo these days is only $800……… No I am not joking. So the neutrality has been replaced by a need to make money.

    As for following the model of the Gay/lesbian community there are a couple of issues that present for this. The issue being that once you come out as gay that is what you are. It has become far more acceptable to be gay or lesbian than any of the other minorities. It is more acceptable to be gay or lesbian than obese, incidentally the most discriminated group in the world. Anyhoo back to my point. Look at one of Americas “Perceived” most wholesome entertainment companies, Disney. Their theme parks and cruise lines have an entire world wide festival called Gay Days, the integration of the community with society. So once you have come out then it is hard to say you are straight. When people use the services of escorts then they can essentially do so in secret. Essentially no one knows. (Unless like a certain Australian politician in the news you use government credit cards…. DOH!) So all of the politicians and law makers that use these services don’t want it publicized because they perceive it will be harder to use these services…. Seeing as these groups have a lot of draw in the political arena as far as focus groups and lobbyists are concerned then they can to some degree change public opinion. What needs to change is the veil of moral religious superiority and overtones that these people present in an attempt to win votes……

    Just my 2 cents. BTW i love the shots. I was wondering where they came from 🙂

    So lets start a “Hug a Hooker day” Hallmark can make a fortune 🙂 That is the only way we will get people to accept the community.

    Have a great everyone and make sure to hug a hooker, maybe send them some flowers. Be well stay happy hope your enjoying the coming summer on your side of the planet.

  19. Aussie Flatmate — No NatGeo staff photographers anymore? Wow, that has fallen by the wayside. The covershot fee is not what I expected either. Things really change.

    While yes, “coming out” as a sex worker means you’re stamped that way among those who know you, it still helps dispell stigma. I know there are out and proud sex workers in Australia and those who still prefer to keep it secret. I’m pretty sure it’s the out and proud ones who change the most minds. But this isn’t an easy conversation to have over blog comments, there are a lot of factors going into it.

    One factor is media and that IS something that could be changed (like this documentary).

    The shots were great. Worth it, though it would have been far less stressful to just book a shoot.

    Hug a Hooker Day is every day!! At least, as far as I’m concerned!

    Enjoying summer as much as I can. It doesn’t last long enough (i.e. all year round).

  20. Quite by accident I downloaded the National Geographic programme in which you were featured and as you looked and sounded more interesting than a bag full of interesting things, I decided to find your website because to be honest the rest of the programme was rubbish… and left me asking more questions than it answered.

    As someone who has just dipped a business toe into a country where the lady on your arm is, as one Russian lady interestingly put it “Your Business Card” I was expecting to see more!
    Investigative journalism… a peep into the world of how the Escort world works mmm… Louis Theroux could have done a better job than the mighty arm of NATGEO.

    As I am now living and working here in Moscow, Russia, the Escort, and shall we say entertainment world, is huge over here. Having never ventured into this world before, it was quite exciting and a little dangerous for me.
    Having watched and listened to your comments on the programme (of which there were not enough as far as I was concerned)I was intrigued to see what you might write further on your website about your world.

    Now, several hours later, having read the way you describe yourself and your openness in allowing us to glimpse a little part of you, I would have to say your marketing is top notch. I found myself Wanting.. Laughing.. Relating… wanting to know you better… laughing at the ways you find humour in your perceptions of life, those around you and your world and relating to your outlook on life.

    I came to the conclusion that there is something very intriguing about you Amanda Brooks. A mystery yet to unfold or hidden beneath the layers of Myers Briggs INFJ behavioural type you have declared yourself as.. I wonder . I look forward to a more personal encounter. Who knows maybe you will have a new client after all…

  21. Michael — Thank you very much for your kind words, both as an author and as an escort! Glad you’re smiling and laughing — I wrote most of my escort site tongue-in-cheek (some see that and some don’t).

    The NatGeo piece was indeed rubbish. Your suggestion of Theroux was inspired!

    Never made it to Russia, though I long considered it (I hate the cold). It has to be an interesting life there. Come to think of it, I haven’t read much about sex work IN Russia itself (just the border countries). Explore, learn and report back!

  22. Amanda, I just seen the NatGeo documentary and I was absolutely appalled. I understand it’s supposed to be biased but honestly it was very rude I found to concentrate on the ex escorts who either had bad experience or chose the lifestyle wasn’t for them. I’m not an escort and I have absolutely no problems with the industry. They need to show the opinion of the women who work in the lifestyle who do like the work. Glad your still in good spirits don’t let the bad-media get you down!

  23. Jillian — Thank you for the outside perspective! I appreciate it when an uninvolved party can look at something (like this NatGeo piece) and see what’s wrong with it. Thanks for the kind words too.

Comments are now closed.