Pimps and why?

Sorry all you ladies that are pimped. If I find out that's the case I will not see you. i don't care if it's a beautiful girl that does it all. You do the work and the pimp gets the money. Fuck them

Mad at black people... Nothing to see here. Originally Posted by dabunk2014

Veiled racist rant... All pimps are black and all blacks are pimps... we get it... very enlightened... move along.

Data source?

A lot of black pimps are more flamboyant and visible, that dies't make them more common.

I think you have very myopic vision and see what you obviously want to see. Originally Posted by Old-T

There you go
https://www.attn.com/stories/4943/wh...k-like-in-2016

Could not get the article to open. Also dud a search, the item showed in the search results but would not open that way either.

Per a study performed by economists of Freakonomics fame:
One controversial finding is that prostitutes do better with pimps—they work fewer hours and are less likely to be arrested by the police or preyed on by gang members.

LargeNutz...

I looked at the article and find the main problem with it is the small sample size (140 intervewed, including child pronographers, and sex workers) in only eight (unnamed) cities.
Far from enough to be conclusive especially when you consider the "cantinas" in Houston and south Texas that are almost exclusively hispanic.
BUT, I don't like pimps because they are exploitative. I think the overall problem is the Black communities acceptance of negative stereo types and behaviour (thug culture). The images of pimps in the article were portrayals of pimp by popular "rappers" one of whom now is hosting a game show.

There you go
https://www.attn.com/stories/4943/wh...k-like-in-2016 Originally Posted by LargeNutz

OK, I opened it on my laptop. Not sure why it wouldn't open on the phone.

LargeNutz...

I looked at the article and find the main problem with it is the small sample size (140 intervewed, including child pronographers, and sex workers) in only eight (unnamed) cities.
Far from enough to be conclusive especially when you consider the "cantinas" in Houston and south Texas that are almost exclusively hispanic.
BUT, I don't like pimps because they are exploitative. I think the overall problem is the Black communities acceptance of negative stereo types and behaviour (thug culture). The images of pimps in the article were portrayals of pimp by popular "rappers" one of whom now is hosting a game show. Originally Posted by gladius82

I agree with those concerns about the study, but I also have a big concern when they say most the people were self-identified. As you point out, it is more acceptable to be a pimp in some parts of the Black culture (some parts, very definitely not all). I would not expect Hispanic or Asian pimps to come forward and claim that is what they are--they are far more likely to disavow any connection, and claim the ladies involved are not prostitutes at all. And any Mafia connected players would not either. This is a very flawed system.

I grew up very close to a big pimp controlled area. Back then they were Irish and black, As the neighborhood changed over time, so did the demographics of the pimps--Colombian, Chinese, Korean, and Blacks all had their turn. It always mimicked the nature of the community at that time. Surprisingly--or maybe not--the only time it did not was when the area was largely Indian/Pakistani.

The article's author admits that their quick check of arrests does not match the self-identified statistics:

"Despite these interviewees insistence that today’s sex workers are primarily voluntary free agents, the picture painted by recent arrest reports is decidedly more troubling."

And the first example they quote identifies three apparently Koreans, when their whole population only identified two Asians.

Additionally, the credibility suffers further with comments like that from the Dallas law enforcement person who claims to have never found an independent lady in the business--according to him, 100% are pimped which is a laughable statement. As is the referenced link where a pimp tries to differentiate pimp from sex trafficker by saying pimps are not coercive.

Per a study performed by economists of Freakonomics fame:
One controversial finding is that prostitutes do better with pimps—they work fewer hours and are less likely to be arrested by the police or preyed on by gang members. Originally Posted by nht

I have a really hard time accepting that as remotely true--unless they limited their study to SWs only. Even there I would doubt it very much. As soon as you mention being preyed on by gang members I wounder about the population of their study vs how wide a conclusion they try to draw.

Bad/poorly done studies do a lot to perpetuate the stereotypes and generalizations that drive some of the absurd laws we have.

Additionally, the credibility suffers further with comments like that from the Dallas law enforcement person who claims to have never found an independent lady in the business--according to him, 100% are pimped which is a laughable statement.
Originally Posted by Old-T

He may be telling the truth as he knows it...He never 'FOUND' an independent. IMHO, the truly independent providers are smart enough to rarely if ever have run-ins with the boys in blue. Methinks that good screening and other TCB skills tend to drastically increase the safety level of providers (and their clients).

Before any one cries "well I know a lady that does this or that, so math is wrong, wah, wah, wah. Whiny babies!

If we do the math a lady works less being pimped as no emails to answer, no texts, no screening, no advertising, no scheduling, etc. If she sees same number of clients with pimp or without per hour rate is pretty even. Less headaches if she is pimped as well, stalkers, other pimps trying to contact her, etc. She will pocket more if she is not pimped but also put in more hours.
I am not advocating for pimps, I do not like them, just trying to be real. The hourly rate stays the same and still lots of variables, just a general statement. And general statements are useful info.

I would say traveling by car is better than by horse - general sstatement. One of you whiny babies will come back and post about trip in Rocky terrain that car unable toaneuver. No shit, cry baby, still general statements are useful.

Generally at current market prices for a prostitute for an hour the rate stays constant or even between pimped and not pimped.

Why would anyone want to support a pimp? That's exactly what you're doing when you see a pimped gal.

The best statics always ask "what does the audience want to hear?" I can find stats and studies to prove it. Taking numerous studies with large samples in all possible forms is ideal but we work with what we have.

He may be telling the truth as he knows it...He never 'FOUND' an independent. IMHO, the truly independent providers are smart enough to rarely if ever have run-ins with the boys in blue. Methinks that good screening and other TCB skills tend to drastically increase the safety level of providers (and their clients). Originally Posted by hotindallas

I agree with that--but any LE person should be a little more worldly than to think there are no independent ladies. That statement of his is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that justifies more LE resources and harsher laws because ALL women are trafficked. I sincerely doubt he believes it, but it fits the desired story line, and both Libs and Cons can support it for different reasons.

If a lady is dumb enough to work her ass off and let the pump beat her and live off of her, that's her choice.
I choose life, I don't worry about how she choses to live. Originally Posted by Warptcuck

Before any one cries "well I know a lady that does this or that, so math is wrong, wah, wah, wah. Whiny babies!

If we do the math a lady works less being pimped as no emails to answer, no texts, no screening, no advertising, no scheduling, etc. If she sees same number of clients with pimp or without per hour rate is pretty even. Less headaches if she is pimped as well, stalkers, other pimps trying to contact her, etc. She will pocket more if she is not pimped but also put in more hours.
I am not advocating for pimps, I do not like them, just trying to be real. The hourly rate stays the same and still lots of variables, just a general statement. And general statements are useful info.

I would say traveling by car is better than by horse - general sstatement. One of you whiny babies will come back and post about trip in Rocky terrain that car unable toaneuver. No shit, cry baby, still general statements are useful.

Generally at current market prices for a prostitute for an hour the rate stays constant or even between pimped and not pimped. Originally Posted by gentlemantoo

Oh my, you think a lady works LESS when pimped? I do not buy that at all from what I have seen. Most ladies work the hours THEY decide when they are independent, and for many of the ones I know that is a few dates a week. When there is a pimp involved, the pimp sets the schedule. Granted, there are often other differences in age, family, other work, etc.

Yes, she does less work herself--less advertising time, less e-mail, etc. However there are many UTR ladies who have a set of regulars plus WOM that fills the hours they wish to work with little time spent posting ads or updating web pages. Some hire schedulers, but there the difference is clear: a scheduler works for THEM, while with a pimp, THEY work for the pimp.

A big "time savings" is screening. Often a pimp's concept of screening is "do you have the cash?" So I consider time saved by not screening is a bad thing, not a good one.

As far as the hourly rate, no, it is not always the same. It may well depend upon location, but in DC and other areas I am most familiar with, any management--decent agency, pimp, other--usually increases the price by $50 or so. But the bigger question is, what portion does the lady get per hour vs what the client pays. Most agency fees I have seen run 25% to 50%, though I suspect they range wider than that. Pimp fees generally run 50% to 100%.

I agree with that--but any LE person should be a little more worldly that to think there are no independent ladies. That statement of his is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that justifies more LE resources and harsher laws because ALL women are trafficked. I sincerely doubt he believes it, but it fits the desired story line, and both Libs and Cons can support it for different reasons. Originally Posted by Old-T

Very good point, Old-T. I hadn't considered it with my 'This is a political spin job in search of additional funding' mindset.