Shared publicly  - 
Lubbock Fantasy Maid Service: the maids clean in lingerie or in the nude.

The founder of the service is a 26 year old single mother and was struggling to find work.

The maids are not ashamed & they aren't worried about safety because they have security that travels with them. The owner says, "They are just a cleaning service with a fun twist!"

One maid is $100/hour, two maids is $250/hour.

They don't exchange sexual services for money. No touching policy. They really do clean!
Louis Profeta's profile photoQuelyn Gretsky's profile photoChris Galardi's profile photoTara Tiger Brown's profile photo
+Rajini Rao It's an interesting case...the owner and her staff have chosen to do this. The owner was formerly a dancer and so she has experience performing in front of people in the nude. Although I would not be comfortable doing this myself, if it is her business, and her choice, then I'm not sure if it is exploitation.
While I recognize the need to make money, this is a form of prostitution and therefore bears all the potential ills of that. And I'm one who says legalized prostitution is potentially an acceptable thing (having seen it working well in parts of Nevada and recognizing that it's going to happen with or without legality). But such things need to be heavily regulated, and even then, that doesn't address the underlying issues of what sort of mindset deems sexual exploitation to be acceptable in the first place, or even desirable.

So I'd vote to keep this legal, but regulated, and I'd rather it wasn't desirable in the first place.

Tara: you can choose to be exploited. Choice doesn't negate that. Since nudity isn't usually a part of cleaning, it's deliberately introducing a sexual, implied submissive aspect to the entire deal. It's exploiting that sexuality, arguably from both sides, but it's still there.
Tara: it's the easy explanation, that these women are doing it out of choice. Like the guy who made the last comment on your What's Hot post that "People should be free to sell their body if they chose". It's his naive male fantasy that these women actually enjoy or prefer this business.
I'm really happy that the woman in that article (and the other positive folks she cites) are doing something they enjoy and feel empowered and all that. But there are a lot of people who are not so empowered by that industry.

Again, there's no point in making it illegal because it'll always happen, but it's imperative that it be regulated for the safety and maximum empowerment of all involved.

Plus even if the stripper is happy and empowered, what about those watching? I'm not a prude, I think porn is all well and good, but someone who can hire someone else to come into their home and clean while naked is not a person I really want to hang around with. If they think it's acceptable to leer at someone doing a non-sexual job, that's just creepy and I don't want that person around me. In fact, if I was an employer and I found out I had a staff member who was doing that, I'd have to worry about how they're objectifying and leering at other staff, or clients, and may have to adjust the situation accordingly.
It isnt exploitation in the least. But it is autosexism. Cleaning and providing availability, no matter if fake or not? sounds like the religious ideal.
I'm sure I've seen advertised the equivalent service with a female focus, barely dressed or nude men cleaning.

In the end, if you have some customer sit around watching you while you work it seems smart to find a way to charge more for this untapped part of the service of providing something to watch.

Maybe there should be a watching fee regardless of the state of undress.
+Kimberly Chapman I'm not sure I follow your logic on this.. You say that nudity + cleaning = sexual/submissive (prostitution) ?

Is cleaning a house inherently submissive? Is nudity inherently sexual? I don't think either of those are the case, and don't see how combining them, while yes it's not an obvious combination, suddenly turns it into something else. If the girls were performing sexual acts of any kind, or even dancing or being flirty then I could see your point, but someone going about their ordinary service job without clothes doesn't magically turn it into something evil.
+Greg Domjan +Kimberly Chapman +Sean Bonner This reminds me of women that strip for men at their bachelor parties. It's hard to know exactly how they are engaging with their clients of if like the article says, they are literally showing up at the door in their lingerie with a bucket of cleaning supplies, clean the house, and leave.
I don't see that +Kimberly Chapman said or implied that cleaning a house is submissive. Rather, she said that nudity introduces a sexual, submissive aspect to a nonsubmissive function.
+Sean Bonner Cleaning isn't the problem. It's the sexualizing of what is otherwise not a sexual activity. Normally, sexualizing your maid who is there just to clean would be seen as highly inappropriate, and the maid may even have grounds for legal action if the sexualization took a bad turn. If a normal maid was cleaning and the employer followed her around leering, she'd be uncomfortable. It may even be harassment, depending on the severity.

By adding the sexual element to the otherwise non-sexual act, it is specifically sexualizing it for the purposes of gratifying the viewer (and hey, maybe even the maid too). That means what is being sold is no longer just cleaning, but sex, and it's immediate, personal, non-removed sex (as opposed, say, to watching porn or reading an erotic novel). The person before you is nude specifically so you can sexually objectify them right there in the moment in that context. The person is selling you the right to do that, to see them and imagine having sex with them (okay fine, maybe there's one client out there who's in it for the "art" of the "nude form" but really, the point is to see the person naked and be able to imagine having sex with them).

That's where the exploitative nature comes in and where it comes alongside prostitution. The person is selling their body for viewing. And it's not just casual: cleaning involves a lot of bending, squatting, and other poses that are going to readily lend themselves to a wide array of views.

It is possible to argue that the exploitation goes both ways, insofar as the cleaners are gaining more clients by exploiting their sexual needs. But there's definitely sexual exploitation going on.

It's submissive in the very structure of the financial relationship. The nude cleaner is there to serve the client. There may be rules about what services are permitted, but make no mistake, the power structure entirely favours the client. As above, the likely poses will enhance the submissive nature of the entire deal: if someone is paid to be naked and bending over to clean a toilet, there's no way you can argue that that's a dominant or even equal position to the one who is paying and watching.

It would be interesting to see how perceptions of this would change if the cleaner that gets assigned to a client's house is not their preferred gender. If you're going to argue that this is simply cleaning with nudity added, then is it okay for the company to send a naked man to clean a heterosexual male client's home?

Also: I never said it was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. It negates your entire argument.
If anything, it's the sad men that are the ones being exploited ;)
Awesome, +Kimberly Chapman , I'm officially a fan of your methodical and logical eloquence. I'm afraid all I can offer to support your arguments is that such useless and pernicious objectivization makes it that much harder for women like myself to pursue even highly intellectual careers at an equal footing with men. It's an ongoing struggle.
+Rajini Rao, that means a lot coming from you. :)

And yeah, I find it hard to on one hand support adults' rights to freely engage in sexual businesses while on the other hand I'm acutely aware of what society does to women who want to be taken seriously as humans independent of our sexuality, without having to sacrifice our sexuality wholesale.

Really, the whole thing would work better if we as a society could acknowledge sexuality as an awesome thing and then be more mature about keeping it out of where it does not belong. As long as we keep having to debate the likes of Elevatorgate, that maturity level is a long way off.

So while I support the right of the service and the clients to exchange money for this thing, the blurring of a non-sexual workspace with overt and intentional sexuality is not, I feel, a long-term healthy thing for our society. I absolutely bet someone could make money selling a service of sexy lab assistants for horny, lonely scientists, but I'd lose all respect for any scientist who even contemplated hiring them, and any lab that allowed it would be at serious risk of harassment lawsuits from those who don't want sex brought into that workspace.
+Kimberly Chapman (and +Tara Tiger Brown ): LOL on the extrapolation to sexy lab assistants. Reminds me of a woman colleague who indeed did have a sexy male lab assistant years ago (he remains a treasured friend to this day). We innocently acknowledged to each other how handsome he was, and went into mini-raptures of admiration when he received roses on Valentine's Day. That should have been a clue, because it turned out that he was gay :) We had some lolz over that. So much for sexy lab assistants, lesson learned. :)
Gotta love the video of the local newscast, when they introduce the investigative piece that one of their reporters has been looking into "for weeks."
+Kimberly Chapman I really enjoyed your posts, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's an issue I've struggled to express my own opinion on. Things like nudity and expressions of sexuality, in and of themselves, are fun activities for consenting adults. The problem is that none of these things exist in a cultural vacuum, and we live in a culture that routinely trivializes women's rights and choices, uses subtle power dynamics to control women, and frequently exploits their bodies.
+Kimberly Chapman I think you also hit the nail on the head, I just think you hit the wrong nail. I guess I just don't see nudity as the same thing as sexuality. I don't think naked instantly equals sex. Now, if this was a stripper service that added cleaning then I think all your comments above would actually be right on, but it's cleaners who happen to be naked. The only "sexuality" added to this has been your projection. Since I haven't used their services I can't speak from first hand experience and can only judge based on what is presented to me, and the linked piece above says specifically that they aren't doing anything sexy, they aren't "stripping" they aren't flirting, they aren't dancing - they are cleaning. If they implied that they'd be doing something else, or there was roll play or whatever then I think you'd have a fine argument, but just being naked doesn't turn them into prostitutes or turn this into sex work. They are cleaners, who happen to be naked. Sexuality requires intent, not perception.
Wow. I want to live in your world.

You seriously think this is my projection? That lingerie-clad or nude cleaners aren't about sex? Do you actually think those hiring naked cleaners aren't doing it for sexual gratification? I mean, really ? No... REALLY ? Like they're all just art students who can't afford models? And if a hetero man in rural Texas hires this service and they send a naked man over to clean, you think he'll be all like, "That's some damned fine abs on that boy. I 'preciate his spectacular form."

Of course nudity does not equal sexuality, but come on. This is selling sex along with the cleaning service. You're a smart man, +Sean Bonner. You can't honestly think that the clients are in this for non-sexual purposes.
+Kimberly Chapman I'm not talking about the clients, that's the "perception" piece I'm talking about. If a guy who has a foot fetish goes to a shoe store all the time are the shoe sales people guilty? Again, if the people providing the service are hamming it up and doing something "sexual" then that's one thing, but the story above - which is all I have to go one, says they aren't. It says they are just cleaning, same as always, only naked. The advertised rates above are the same as normal cleaners, not those of in house strippers. I take it the cleaners don't give a shit what the customers are thinking about, they are just there to clean. If you know something I don't, and they are there leading people on or doing something "sexual" then that's a whole different story, but just being naked doesn't imply sex work.
Why else would these maids be nude, +Sean Bonner , other than for sexual gratification? Perhaps they are artistic inspiration for a sculptor or anatomy practice for a physician in training? <sarcasm and disbelief>
If the shoe store presented the shoes specifically in a way to get the attention of foot-fetish folks, then they'd be part of the fetish, yes. This service is specifically highlighting the sexual aspect.

There are two sides to this economic arrangement: the seller and the client. The seller knows entirely that the client will be doing it for sexual purposes. It's got the word "Fantasy" in the company name. They're not wearing granny panties and support bras. They're wearing garments specifically designed for sexual stimulation and if you ask them, they'll take the lingerie off (which establishes a command-based fantasy context, which is inherently promoting an aura of submission). The owner got the idea while working at a strip club. Go look at their website and tell me where you see photos pertaining to cleaning:!

Obviously the authorities agree: hence the threat of fine for operating an unregulated sexual business. The owner is arguing against that so she doesn't have to pay to register properly, but I'm sorry, you don't get to post clearly sexualized images of your maids - and not one of them actually cleaning that I can see, nor a clean house, nor cleaning supplies - and then claim to not be about sex.

Let's try this experiment: would it be acceptable for them to market the services of a minor like this? Why does the site have to specify that clients must be over 18 if there's nothing sexual going on?

This is both a cleaning service and a sex service. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Also: I never said anyone was "guilty". Or "evil" as you accused me before. I'm not the one projecting here.
Naked ≠ equal to sex, it is the context. There is no context here, other than gratuitous nakedness, unrelated to function, art or anything that we can think of other than sex. That's the difference.
Are nudists sex workers then? I mean, they do things naked that most people do clothed, so judging by your argument they must be sex workers simply because they are naked.
No, you're not paying attention, Sean. I've agreed that nude does not equal sex. Obviously a cute picture of a baby in a bathtub is not sexual and only a pervert would consider it so.

But go look at the website and come back and tell me it's not meant to be sexual. I dare you. It is clearly presented in that context.

Nudists, by contrast, generally work hard to present their nudity as not sexual. A nudist does not wear lingerie. A nudist doesn't promote nudism as "fantasy".

They are promoting this as a fantasy cleaning business. IT IS THERE IN THE NAME.

Seriously. Go look at the site. Come back and tell me that's asexual. DARE YOU.
Anybody else want to weigh in with a totally different perspective? I'm mostly interested in the entrepreneurial spirit that a single mom has shown here. In this economy we all need to get creative.
+Kimberly Chapman How it's marketed makes no difference, what actually happens is what matters. I think this is brilliant marketing for a small business to differentiate what they are doing in a crowded market of businesses providing the exact same service. It's no different that that coffee shop a few years ago that had topless baristas that was shut down for violating indecency laws. But indecency isn't prostitution, and neither is cleaning a house naked.

If they were offering sexual services they'd be charging sexual service prices, not house cleaning prices.
So since I've proven that the clients are in it for sexual purposes and the company is in it for sexual purposes and therefore it's sexually based, you're moving the goal posts and saying it's not sexual because they're not allowing touching on-site? That's not even logical.

Sorry, I'm not debating with that kind of nonsense anymore. Go ahead and keep telling yourself it's not sexual. I can't have a rational discussion with that level of delusion. [edit note: I am saying that the notion that this is not a sexual business is delusional, not that anyone who says that is fully delusional themselves]
I'm also wondering if those that have had to struggle to put food on the table for themselves and kids would be less judgemental of her business choice...On the flipside, is this going to cause issues for her kids with their peer groups? 
I've been poor. I'm not saying what she's doing is bad. I'm just saying it is sexual and she should pay the registration fee for a sex-based business. Like I said wayyyy up there, I support legalized sex work. But part of that means following the regulations.

And it will cause issues, which is totally unfair, but also true.
I meant that the argument that it's not sexual is delusional, not necessarily the person who said it. I apologize and will edit to clarify.
+Kimberly Chapman Hilarious. I hope you'll be as diligent in fighting for the sex worker status of hooters waitresses sense their sexuality is used in marketing and people go there to stare at boobs - who cares that they are just bringing food to your table, those ladies by your definition are prostitutes. Also I can't wait for your strongly worded attack on those services masquerading as car washes that employ bikini clad women yet aren't registered as sex services.

I'm you aren't making the laws.
Exploiting women's bodies is hilarious to some men. The girls at Hooters are hilarious indeed. As are the bikini clad car washers. I'll find it hilarious when I see men in those roles. Until then, enjoy your hilarity by yourself.
+Rajini Rao dunno about "hilarious" but the "beefcake" positions DO exist out there, even though not to the same degree as with women. Chippendales is the most obvious one, but even in radio, there are lots of guys who get jobs because they can be put out there for women to ogle, not because of their broadcasting skills. my concern is less about the fact that such overt objectification exists, but rather that some people seem to actually LIKE that they can get a job where their pecs, abs, breasts or butt is the primary qualification.
+Sean Bonner exactly. they're not anywhere near as common as Hooters or the - like we have ALL over the place in this town - bikini drive-up margarita services, but they are out there.
Women as objectives for sex far outnumber that of men. As was said so eloquently in a comment above, we live in a culture that trivializes women's rights, denies them their choice, controls and exploits their bodies.
+Rajini Rao I'm sure +Melissa Borrett appreciates you preventing her from trivializing her own rights, denying herself a choice, controlling and exploiting her own body. Nice work!
I'm not rising to the bait, +Sean Bonner . I hate to mix metaphors, but I should have known to "“Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”
one thing's for certain: she'd have to be better than Mr. Clean and the entire Dow "scrubbing bubbles" team put together to be able to charge $250 an hour for maid service in Texas.
you know, not counting the whole nude thing.
+Rajini Rao You are right, it's much easier to call people names and then walk away then defend your poor argument.

+Dan Valentine It's $100 an hour, $250 an hour for 2 maids which is on par with higher end cleaning services, at least here in Los Angeles.
Wow. I'm so glad I didn't see this earlier, I'd have lost my afternoon.

I smiled when I saw the link. I thought it was cute. And while yes, I'm sure clients would largely hire these nude cleaners because they are sexually attracted to nude females, I really don't think it can be argued that nude housecleaning is a sexually-charged service in the sense that stripping is. And to suggest that it's literally prostitution is outright laughable, unless we're going to go the George Carlin route and talk about the immorality of paying someone to pretend to care about you, and label everyone from waiters to hairdressers 'prostitutes'.

Frankly, I am SICK TO DEATH of women who carry on about exploitation, claiming to speak for ALL women, including those who openly and confidently state that they find stripping or sex work empowering and enjoyable, because clearly those women simply are blind to how badly they are being exploited. Are there sex workers who are exploited, absolutely...and it's because society shames them, persecutes them, makes them pariahs. Sex workers lack the basic rights and recourse against exploitation every human being should have because the system that should protect them considers them sluts and criminals.

And don't even drag out the argument about how another woman's choice to strip demeans your struggle to be taken seriously in intellectual careers. While I don't doubt that sexism exists in the workplace, I have overwhelmingly found that if I act like a smart, capable member of the group, men treat me like a smart, capable member of the group. The average man does enjoy objectifying the female body, enjoys looking at porn or strippers or otherwise nekkid ladies, and is perfectly capable of enjoying such things without assuming that women are vapid sex toys. Women's equality isn't quite "there" yet, but sweeping thousands of years of evolutionary programming under the rug and pretending that the sexes don't like to objectify each other ain't the answer.

Heck, there are women who strip to pay for college, even graduate degrees. I don't blame 'em - I've talked to strippers who made $500 a night, and that was a dozen years ago at least. As one earlier poster suggested, I think it may be men who are being exploited there!

Lighten up, read some Heinlein, maybe go ogle some Chippendales. Worry a little less about whether someone else has their kit off or whether Sean Bonner is a dirty old man. If you want to be taken seriously, act like someone who deserves to be taken seriously. And raise your sons to see no difference in the potential of men and women - old prejudices fall away with the generations as we do.
In Japan they have this same kind of service, except the maids wear your choice of the classic French maid outfit (meido), a sailor uniform (seifuku), or a one-piece swimsuit (sukumizu). Cat ears (nekomimi) and tail (shippo) optional.
+Kimberly Chapman +Rajini Rao Clearly you both have strong opinions on this matter and I respect that ,but you have become disrespectful -- Kimberly isn't abiding by her own about page of rules here on my page -- and I am going to have to ask you to stop now. Your arguments were great until you got nasty with name calling and that takes away from your credibility.
Barry V
But do they do a good job cleaning? It's so hard to find a housekeeper that does a good job cleaning these days. Do it naked or in a burqa, but please dust above the mirror!
They do need focus and a smile, the smile is all they wear besides the sponge!
I first read about this (not her particular company, but the general business) a few years ago. Okay - back in high school, which is more than a few. Like it or hate it, it's not a business model that's going away.
Hmmm ... I need a job. I live in a university town with a lot of middle and upper-middle-class men. I bet this would take off here. (goes off to see what it would take to start something like this)
"Twist" please can you define the "with a twist" further a bit?
In these economic times this should spread like wildfire, the pay is great, how about men cleaning for the tired ladies?
There was a man in his underwear playing a guitar on 42nd street and he did very well; a private driver!
If this is prostitution then so is playing professional sports because your genetics make you better than 99% of other players. Simple as that. Thread over.
Let's talk about Asia Carerra. She's a genius, literally. She also loves to have sex. She got a full scholarship to college, and she had many choices in what she could do in her life. However, the profession she most wanted to pursue, was pornography. It makes her happy. That is NOT exploitation.

However, if a woman has states that she is doing this because she is finding it hard to find other gainful employment, that worries me. When women become sex-workers because they fucking love it, then more power to them. When they do it because of dire straights, or "having no choice" that's when I feel it's not so great anymore.

I also don't agree with making men sound like pigs for this. You wouldn't like it if David Beckham or some other hot dude with abs came and cleaned your house naked? Get the fuck out of here, who wouldn't think that's cool to watch someone hot do anything while naked. I hate this idea that in order to be a feminist, or respect people you can't be a sexual deviant at the same time. Embrace sexuality, don't make it some pox upon humanity.

+Sean Bonner You said how this service is not inherently sexual. Someone cleaning while naked is not sexual. However, it's not a CRAZY assumption that someone hiring a woman they don't know to clean their house naked isn't appealing. And I imagine anyone with a functioning blood flow would find that brand of appealing sexual. It's just common sense. The minority of people might find it funny or kitchy or whatever. Or perhaps a nudist colony would like to employ these services because they believe in nudity. But those are corner cases, I'm sure.

The bottom line is, if she is doing it because she loves it, more power to her. If she does it despite feeling badly or exploited, that's not a good thing.
+Rich Schiavi I had to look that up. haha

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
+Tara Tiger Brown: Good enough. Though I'd say it's worth reading simply because of the amount of history it's had an effect on. Personally I believe this to be unfortunate because I don't find it to be the best writing, so it was kinda a slog when I went through it :/
+Chris Galardi I agree. I did read some of it in Sunday School but that experience had such a negative effect on me I didn't finish.
Add a comment...