Would a pimp keep you from seeing a provider?

[Guest102513-1]

Well regarding Santa Pimp...for those that might remember...he and I have a little history on this board.

Supposely the last time he and I "shared" some thoughts, I got a couple of PM's out of NOLA. They were supposed to be hobbists. And based upon their past posting history, that seem possible...but who knows??

Anyway the messages were that Santa has been gone for months...and Ellie & her deadbeat boyfriend were now exclusively running the show. Their business had dropped significantly, with the exception of Ellie.

Our last exchange, a couple of months ago, did not have the spirit that our previous ones had...actually rather boring & childlike from their end.

Just thought I would throw that out there, since Santa Pimp's name came up

[AllThisMeat]

There are a lot of ladies out there who are working with or for someone else. If they're doing their job right, no one knows they're there and everything goes as planned. But, having said that, I don't think I would knowingly see a provider who has someone regularly taking money from them to do something they can do for themselves.

Before you jump my shit... I've not seen any of the Elves, nor any of the girls who currently work for EF in a "business" manner because I see it as being the same thing. I also don't like going to strip clubs to buy dances... Why? Because the house takes a cut of all the lady's profits--that and 90% of the time, you pay a lot of money to get teased and nothing ever happens from it. I can do that by going on a date with some chick in town... and there's a better chance I'll get laid too.

[BigMikeinKC]

A madam does not force a girl to turn over all her money to her. Nor does a madam beat her girls to "keep them in line." Generally, a madam is very protective of her girls. Usually true of an agency too, but sometimes not.

Would I knowing see a girl who has a pimp - no. Have I seen a gil who has a pimp without my knowledge - probably.

Deadbeat boyfriends? How does one go about getting that gig? I could quit work, go out with the boys, come home drunk, not do housework...

[KCQuestor]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

A madam does not force a girl to turn over all her money to her. Nor does a madam beat her girls to "keep them in line."

Some of the posts earlier in this thread seem to suggest that people have a much broader definition of a pimp than this.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

A madam does not force a girl to turn over all her money to her. Nor does a madam beat her girls to "keep them in line." Generally, a madam is very protective of her girls.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Some of the women I have come in contact with as madames are more repugnant than any male could ever think of being . . . even to this very day there are controversies and rumors of beatings, being held hostage (in sexual slavery) and being shorted all one's pay from the legal brothels in Nevada that are owned or controlled by women. Of course, many of them are just that - rumors. But too many are proven to be fact after investigation and rumor has root in truth many times, and in Nevada as far as madames are concerned, they are generally true. It is unheard of to hear the same for those establishments run primarily by men. There are two brothels in Nevada I left within the first two hours at considerable expense to myself (gaining entrance to work legally with the cost of physical exams, blood work, etc. can be quite financially daunting and usually the responsibility of the lady seeking employment) - I left because of what I witnessed the female owners there doing (or having done). A woman can hurt another woman in ways that only a very few men know how to accomplish . . . and female madames are generally among the worst.

History proves this out also . . . the most ruthless "pimps" in the history of Kansas City were Escort services operated by women, going back even to the first brothels (link) where women were usually owners. Although the article is light on details, it is estimated in reality that between the three first female brothel owners in Kansas City, they were together responsible for over 500 ladies finding their last resting place in the river (regardless of the public face they put on, they were violent and excruciatingly menacing and cruel). Interestingly, the City Union Mission occupied (as owner) three former brothels in Kansas City before they eventually settled in to their current location (which has brothel connections). Many in the religious community in Kansas City realized that it was not only good business sense to occupy what was basically already built as a hotel for their outreach to homeless and "wayward" men (and that they came cheap - or sometimes free) - but also that it was advantageous to occupy the former brothels as a statement against the violence. It was common at the time for sermons throughout the city and surrounding communities to include a mention that the Mission had occupied a building where such horrific acts of violence had occurred - with the emphasis on God triumphing over evil and how the poor souls trapped inside those walls for eternity could now find respite and move on "to the open arms of heaven". Anything to help fill the collection plate on Sunday morning . . . or to be used as an excuse to hold a "revival" (there were several centered on or around the "brothels turned Mission" over the years).

In the late 1970's and throughout the 80's (and into the 90's with one madame) there were several female Agency owners here in KC that were truly as hardcore as any pimp that might have been found on the streets of our city - and this was at a time when pimps were killing in the streets daily. Dennis would tell stories of their exploits (as he worked for or with many of them - or bought their Agencies when the madames were eventually convicted, murdered, killed themselves or fled prosecution), and the things those women did to their girls would turn the stomach of any man - no matter how jaded or insensitive to violence he may be from being at war, etc. . . .

Most times madames are the most violent of pimps (even if they have someone else to do their "wet work" for them). This includes most madames working today - a working girl knows she can get away with a certain amount of shenanigans at a male owned "house" - but you never cross a madame. Never. It will probably be the last person you cross in this business, and most ladies learn that lesson quickly, or the hard way.

Even the famous contemporary madames of novels and mini-series and those still working today are faster with the knife than Jack the Ripper - there are notable exceptions, Renee and Allison (both of whom operate National Agencies) are great women with clean businesses and I doubt use the same heavy handedness that others have . . . and I have not heard of such from Brook at EF, but, for the most part you still don't want to catch yourself getting out of line too far with any madame, no matter how "nice" you believe her to be. These romanticized accounts of the loving and protective madame taking a girl under her wing (I can think of two recent books and one movie) may be true in some regard (perhaps only to the person that wrote them), but the polar opposite is the status quo in reality. Sometimes the level to which these madames are elevated (or elevate themselves) within our in popular culture is a direct attempt to avoid prosecution for past transgressions . . .

As I mentioned, there are a few exceptions - but if you've lived it as I have and traveled and worked for some of these ladies, you might have a much different perspective of a "madame".

Kisses,

- Jackie

[The DarkSide]

Can I get the cliff notes on what Jackie said, after the word contact my eyes went cross eyed and everything got blurry, thanks!

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by The DarkSide

Can I get the cliff notes on what Jackie said, after the word contact my eyes went cross eyed and everything got blurry, thanks!

You might want to read it DS, I realize my posts are for the most part all "tl;dr" for most of you - but that one is a good one, IMO . . . and the link to the history of brothels in KC makes for an interesting read - even though some of it is slightly inaccurate (there has been research conducted since that report was written that reveals fact that contradicts some of the oral histories - keep in mind the first sentence of the article - that documentation is thin) and the part about Annie finding religion for absolution for her sins (murders) is glazed over . . . but there is still a lot of good and accurate history there.

Kisses,

- Jackie

[BigMikeinKC]

I am not going to quote Jackie as it will eat up too much space.

I should have clarified by saying "in my experiences..." and "from what some working girls have told me."

Sorry to hear of how you were treated, Jackie.

[Guest121212]

I would expect that your experiences as a client interacting with a madame would leave you with the impression you shared initially Big Mike . . . after all, most working madames were at one time Escorts themselves - and they were / are the best actresses of their profession.

[Guest102513-1]

Hey Jackie, interesting thoughts and some interesting history as well.

I aware of some of those '80's women-owned agencies, as I had a friend who also owed a KC esort agency from mid-80's until mid 90's. My friend "purchase" a couple of those agenicies as well...not all them were run by dangerous individuals. (BTW do you remember the agency that was run by 2 sisters? Then one of the sister got a bad news BF and the agencies split. The one with the sisiter/BF allegely did turn to the darkside and became extremely abusive to its girls. If memory serves me correctly, the BF ended up going to prison, long term for some violence outside the hobby. However the sister that continue on her own, seemed to run a solid agency. As my friend, who owned the agency would swap out business with her agency when either business got to overflowing, or either one had a shortage of girls.)

But to state all madam's as being abusive would be an incorrect generalization...not saying you did, just throwing out the other side.

We have a well known agency here in KC, that as far as I can tell, is woman-owned. Seems to have a solid reputation.
Not done any business directly thru the agency, but have done business with a couple of gals who used to work for it. There may have been some disagreements, but I do not believe anyone would say abuse. There also is a well known agency operating out of NOLA, woman owned. She has a somewhat bitchy present on the site, at times, but I do not believe any of her girls would classify her as abusive, as I have come to know a couple of them over the years. Granted, those are just 2 woman-owned agencies that I am aware of...but no signs of abuse.

Like I said earlier, I understand you were merely pointing out that there have been some horribly abusive madams both locally and nationally. So I hear what you are saying.

But, IMO, there are no hard "yes or no" when it comes to pimps and madams. Ladies turn to them, sometimes for horrible reasons, sometimes to not only help them run their business...but also to establish some back up security. For those not in abusive situations, IMO, it is the ladies's right to choose, in the healthy cases. And for us hobbists, the healthy situations, we probably are totally unaware of, if our relationship is purely of a solid business relationship.

Without question both of these areas include some terrible and abusive individuals.
But to just color them all as "bad people, thus I would never engage in business with girls working for them" is a tad bit narrow minded for anyone.

Just a couple of thoughts, on my part

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by vkmaster

Hey Jackie, interesting thoughts and some interesting history as well.

I aware of some of those '80's women-owned agencies, as I had a friend who also owed a KC esort agency from mid-80's until mid 90's. My friend "purchase" a couple of those agenicies as well...not all them were run by dangerous individuals. (BTW do you remember the agency that was run by 2 sisters? Then one of the sister got a bad news BF and the agencies split. The one with the sisiter/BF allegely did turn to the darkside and became extremely abusive to its girls. If memory serves me correctly, the BF ended up going to prison, long term for some violence outside the hobby. However the sister that continue on her own, seemed to run a solid agency. As my friend, who owned the agency would swap out business with her agency when either business got to overflowing, or either one had a shortage of girls.)

But to state all madam's as being abusive would be an incorrect generalization...not saying you did, just throwing out the other side.

We have a well known agency here in KC, that as far as I can tell, is woman-owned. Seems to have a solid reputation.
Not done any business directly thru the agency, but have done business with a couple of gals who used to work for it. There may have been some disagreements, but I do not believe anyone would say abuse. There also is a well known agency operating out of NOLA, woman owned. She has a somewhat bitchy present on the site, at times, but I do not believe any of her girls would classify her as abusive, as I have come to know a couple of them over the years. Granted, those are just 2 woman-owned agencies that I am aware of...but no signs of abuse.

Like I said earlier, I understand you were merely pointing out that there have been some horribly abusive madams both locally and nationally. So I hear what you are saying.

But, IMO, there are no hard "yes or no" when it comes to pimps and madams. Ladies turn to them, sometimes for horrible reasons, sometimes to not only help them run their business...but also to establish some back up security. For those not in abusive situations, IMO, it is the ladies's right to choose, in the healthy cases. And for us hobbists, the healthy situations, we probably are totally unaware of, if our relationship is purely of a solid business relationship.

Without question both of these areas include some terrible and abusive individuals.
But to just color them all as "bad people, thus I would never engage in business with girls working for them" is a tad bit narrow minded for anyone.

Just a couple of thoughts, on my part

I do mention Brook by name in my posting and said I had not heard of any issues as such from EF and I did also mention there were exceptions to the rule, VK.

However, I stand by my assertion that it would be a "rule" - that rule being that a woman running things in this endeavor as a madame is more dangerous than any man. I don't at all feel it to be an incorrect or unfair generalization, and those ladies with a wealth of experience with madames such as myself would agree with me as it is proven by experience, fact and even public record . . . there's a whole side to this you can't (by the nature of the business) ever see or truly know.

However, VK - Your statement "But to just color them all as "bad people, thus I would never engage in business with girls working for them" is a tad bit narrow minded for anyone." isn't at all fair to describe or summarize my statement / position or anything I would take from my post if I were reading it and didn't write it - those are your words based on your assumptive perception - and certainly not my own - nor my intent. Not only did I mention there were exceptions to the rule, I don't make any statement of whether or not anyone should engage in business with a madame or their girls. I DID say in a previous statement that ladies that were being actively pimped should not be patronized, but there is a distinction between a madame and a pimp regardless of their similarities. I realize I didn't make that very clear in my posting . . . That discussion, however, would be a whole other post - and I'm sure not one for this thread. Please don't extrapolate my previous posting in this thread into this one on the subject of madames.

[Guest102513-1]

Hey Jackie, I certainly did not mean to describe your post as narrow minded.

Sorry if it came off that way. The reason I stated that, was more to the majority of posts in this thread, which indicate that people would not do business with a pimp.
That was what I was trying to communicate. So if it did not come out that way...my bad!!!!

[Guest121212]

It's cool VK - I just wanted to clarify that there is a distinction between a madame and a pimp regardless of their similarities - a distinct difference . . . so we're good! I realize I didn't make aspects of that clear in my post.

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Guest102513-1]

BTW, since I'm on the other side of hobbyland, of course I would not begin to try and say I would have inside knowledge of what experience ladies, such as yourself would know about the inside of the workings. I totally respect that, and know because of that, we can have these types of postings (would it be called a discussion on the internet, lol).

However, I have come to know several ladies quite well. Both currently working in KC & NOLA area...now and in the past (as far as KC goes). I also came to know a guy very well who owed the agency I referred to in my initial post. Based upon my experiences with them...did I hear horror stories about madams, yes. But I also heard very favorable stories about madams as well.

So I well conclude, that IMO, there are bad situations with some madams. But in my, granted limited experience, there have also been some very healthy ones.

[Guest102513-1]

I think we were post posting our "tip of our hats" back to each other at the same time.

Glad it hear it's all good on both sides, lol.

And nice to see when two reasonable hobbist and provider don't just kiss each other's butt on this site....a reasonable and sane discussion can be made.

Although I may be lacking a bit on the sane part, lol