Cowboy Caleb wrote the below about this site:
Singaporean Lady Prostitutes Herself On Blog – you’re overpriced, you stupid skank.
Which makes me wonder – why the vitriolic comment.
At first, I thought Cowboy Caleb was not happy with the service, but having followed Cowboy Caleb’s blog, I don’t think he is that sort of guy (i.e he isn’t the kind that needs to pay for sex / if he wanted it, he gets it for free, he is that cool) plus he is married so he confirm won’t indulge in such stuff.
So, I’m thinking it is just moral indignation.
Then why the indignation with the lady who is enterprising enough to use a blog to promote her social escort services.
Sure, these supposed social escort services are more often than not a big ‘nudge-nudge-wink-wink-we-really-know-what-it-is-all-about’ prelude to the really good stuff. So? But who really knows anyway…I’m not rich enough to pay that sort of prices.
Then I decided to do a little Googling, and found this site.
It would seem the average price is around $250 an hour on that site. Wait, let’s look at other sites.
This site is charging way more for their girls. And if you have any doubts about the nature of these services, look at the URL – ‘ons_rates.html’. In case you are wondering, ‘ONS’ is the abbreviation for ‘one night stand’. This site charges $1500 for an hour. WTF.
I decided to check one more site, and I hit the sweet spot. The services for these girls are also higher than babyvincy’s. But check out the girls being offered, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and you will find babyvincy. Guess what, she charges $800 on this site.
What does that mean?
It means someone else is probably getting a cut of $300 from babyvincy’s work.
What’s worse I wonder – a gal using her body to get ahead in life (at least in monetary terms) or someone who uses a gal’s body to get ahead in life?
If there was a hell, who will get tortured by Lucifer himself and who will be given to Hitler to toy around with?
Anyway, back to the original question – what’s wrong with prostituting yourself?
No seriously, what’s wrong? We live in a world where women are being used to sell something else for money. Think about it.
Have you been to the legendary car showroom where the female salesperson would let you check the car engine, positioning herself well enough across the front so that you can also check out the ‘mountains and valley’?
You don’t know about the showroom? Shows you ain’t rich enough to shop for cars there. Go ask your old rich uncles. They’ll probably know.
Or did you hear the one about the private banker who had to sleep with her client just to meet her quota?
Nope?
Hey, you ain’t rich enough to be sold private banking products.
What’s my point?
We live in a world where we use women. Simple as that. We use their physical attractiveness. We use their bodies. Sometimes, we disguise it as advertising. Sometimes, as marketing. Sometimes, as relationship marketing.
Sure, not all salespeople do that. Sure, not all women find it within themselves to be used like that.
So, what’s my point again.
The product is different. That’s all. Still same strategy.
When you look at a gal like babyvincy, don’t get upset that you’ll looking at a ‘cheap whore’ cos frankly she isn’t. She is just an enterprising young woman who is cutting out the middle man and selling the product that people (or rather men) really want to buy.





Horizon | 09-Nov-08 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
When I look at the content, I can only say… they’re expensive…. But I didn’t realize that someone is actually doing this.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 10 Nov 2008 | 10-Nov-08 at 11:55 am | Permalink
[...] who exposed his dad and brother’s dirty businesses online: ???? or ????? – Ian On The Red Dot: What’s Wrong With Prostituting Yourself? – Beautiful Monster: Teen pregnancies linked to TV – Aussie Pete: We’re All Human – Celebrity [...]
hannah | 10-Nov-08 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
For your edification, Lucifer ≠ Satan.
Ians Mom | 10-Nov-08 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
I whore myself for much less~!
nocturne | 11-Nov-08 at 5:54 am | Permalink
Lucifer ≠ Satan ?!!
Milton lied to me. He shall burn in Hell for that.
cowdung | 11-Nov-08 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
lucifer=pastor
hannah | 12-Nov-08 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
From a book which has not failed me thus far:
The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning” (Isaiah 14:12). The verse refers to an arrogant King of Babylon who intended to ascend to heaven to set his throne above the stars of God. Saint Jerome (circa 342-420 C.E.) – noting that Isaiah uses the epithet “day star”, that Satan is seen to “fall like lightning from Heaven” (Luke 17:18), and that the Latin word Lucifer means “light-bearer” – incorrectly interpreted the verse to mean that Satan and Lucifer were one and the same. English poet John Milton popularized this misinterpretation in 1667 in his epic poem Paradise Lost, in which Satan is also named Lucifer.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 46 | 15-Nov-08 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
[...] dad and brother’s dirty businesses online: 大义灭亲 or 大逆不道? – Ian On The Red Dot: What’s Wrong With Prostituting Yourself? – Beautiful Monster: Teen pregnancies linked to TV – Aussie Pete: We’re All Human – Celebrity [...]
Singapore Ads | 07-Jul-09 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
Even in the most innocent way, when dating, women expect gifts from men. Isnt it some kind of selling herself too?
iantimothy | 07-Jul-09 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
Not really. The woman might still date the guy without the gifts. However, if staying as a dating couple is dependent on there being a continuous supply of gifts, then yes, she is selling herself.