saminseattle

In most jurisdictions that's enough to get them busted. Remember Daddy's Rules?

Don't Panic
Know The Law
Obey The Law

 

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

Are disclaimers a guarantee you're all clear? Obviously not. But giving your potential future defense attorney at least something to work with by refusing to directly promise sex acts in exchange for money is better than freely giving a prosectuor all he needs to convict.
 
Good defense attorneys have gotten guilty parties off on legalese, wording, and semantics. Words, letters, and the letter of the law actually do matter in court. A good defense attorney will not let insinsuation and suggestion alone be enough to convince 12 people beyond resonable doubt you broke laws. Disclaimer or no, if the prosecution has foolproof evidence you've engaged in illegal acts, you will likely be convicted. So why provide such evidence to them freely?
 
This risk comes with the territory, hence why clients should think twice balking what escorts charge. This is risky business, not a free for all. And all escorts should have a legal defense emergency fund, just in case.

Seattle is a beautiful city. If you want to see the sun, u better go between May and August. I was there one time between January and February for 6 weeks, and only saw the sun one day. But, I love everything about the city.

In situations like this, I think it is unhelpful to quote what someone says and challenge them on it, as it denies them the opportunity to recast their words. By all means challenge them, but including referenced text is not necessary. Once in here, I said something regrettable and decided to delete it, but before I had done so someone quoted the whole passage and said it was a shitty thing to say. I edited what I said, but my challenger had ensured that the original remained on record.
 
In this sort of industry of course people should declare their income for tax, but claiming expenses is problematic, so it would be understandable if net income were declared rather than declare the gross income and run the risk of a censorious IRS agent disallowing valid business expenses.

I know it's a cash biz and simple convenience says use it when possible, but you may want to re-think the level of transparency you revealed here. Just a suggestion from someone who wants you to succeed to the max.....as a pro in this biz.

This song gives me so much life <333
I'm a PSB whore, & proud of it!

I wasn't equating sex worker rights to civil rights, but now that you mention it, rights are rights. When Martin Luther King stated that an "unjust law is no law at all", I believe he meant it to transcend the
civil rights movement. Laws that restrict consenting adults from doing as they wish with their bodies and money are unjust. No victim=No crime.

You just stole my heart!!
Might have to schedule a visit to Seattle soon!:p

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

I just want to point out that you guys are making a lot of assumptions. Maybe those assumptions make sense as generalizations based on your own experiences, but they are rank speculation when it comes to a specific situation with which you have no direct personal involvement. Before leaping to conclusions about what people supposedly know and don’t know, you should remember that people can only be convicted of a crime if the State proves they are guilty of a particular crime on a particular date in a particular jurisdiction. The fact—and it is a fact—that at least some RM advertisers on at least some occasions provide nonsexual companionship/nonsexual massage/nonsexual coaching services for an hourly fee, raises plenty of doubts, imho, about whether any given RM advertiser is actually engaged in criminal activity on a particular occasion. That’s why cops go to the trouble of setting up undercover stings operations…they need specific, reliable, admissible evidence of a particular crime, not just “common sense” assumptions about what people are up to. So, while I don’t claim to have any particular expertise beyond what I read on the Internet, I would say that more important than the specific “disclaimer” language in an ad, is what someone says and does with an undercover cop. If there is nothing sexual going on, then you are innocent and in a strong position to defeat any unwarranted charges. If there is something sexual going on, then you are obviously at much greater risk of being accused and convicted of a crime. To minimize this risk, you should probably be as careful in person about what you say (avoiding anything explicit or that could be interpreted as offering a sex-for-money exchange) as you are in your ad.

Nice try, but if you are talking about certified sex therapists, you are talking about licensed professionals in areas like psychology and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Sex_Therapist I am fairly certain that the applicable professional ethics rules would forbid them from personally participating in a sexual situation with one of their patients, at the risk of losing their license. If you are talking about someone who is more of an informal “coach,” if you will, who uses a “hands-on” approach to help clients deal with sexual hang-ups, I should think that person would still be at risk for being charged with the crime of prostitution if he accepts money in connection with any kind of sexual act. While I personally think this kind of service could be totally legitimate and genuinely therapeutic for some people, the “powers that be” would probably argue that it is still a crime. Having said that, it would be interesting to see someone use this as a defense, especially if they could put forward a particularly believable and sympathetic case.

Nice try, but if you are talking about certified sex therapists, you are talking about licensed professionals in areas like psychology and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Sex_Therapist I am fairly certain that the applicable professional ethics rules would forbid them from personally participating in a sexual situation with one of their patients, at the risk of losing their license. If you are talking about someone who is more of an informal “coach,” if you will, who uses a “hands-on” approach to help clients deal with sexual hang-ups, I should think that person would still be at risk for being charged with the crime of prostitution if he accepts money in connection with any kind of sexual act. While I personally think this kind of service could be totally legitimate and genuinely therapeutic for some people, the “powers that be” would probably argue that it is still a crime. Having said that, it would be interesting to see someone use this as a defense, especially if they could put forward a particularly believable and sympathetic case.

You may have access to this site from your work computer, but your employer almost certainly has the right to access your website history at work. Something to keep in mind…

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

I do not think that a disclaimer is necessarily useless or ineffective. It really all depends on the particular facts of a given situation.
 
First, remember that it is not a crime to be an escort. Providing someone nonsexual companionship for a fee is perfectly legal. Moreover, as has been discussed many times on this forum, such companionship does occur and may be more common than many people assume. http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/a-session-with-no-sex.111157/; https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/time-only.106963/#post-993783 (post 2), https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/cuddle-up-day-and-miscellaneous-mentions.120706/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/fashion/professional-cuddling.html, https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/...tween-prostitution-and-escort-services-24035/. For example, many people might be skeptical that a client would pay someone $200 simply to have brunch together with no sex before or after…just to talk, and yet I know for a fact that this kind of thing does happen.
 
Second, even assuming that many people use escorting as a cover for what is actually prostitution, that does not mean that law enforcement can simply go around arresting escorts on the assumption that they are actually sex workers. The reason cops go to the trouble of setting up stings is that they are trying to get some fairly explicit evidence of a sex-for-money-exchange in a particular case. Remember, a prosecutor may ultimately need to unanimously convince a jury of his case beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a tough standard to meet if there is any ambiguity or gap in the evidence.
 
So, for example, if an undercover police officer invites an advertiser to a hotel and gets him to say, “yes, I will fuck you for $200,” then the fact that his ad said, “I do not accept money for sexual acts” would not be particularly helpful to him. If the disclaimer is obviously not true, it won't do the advertiser any good. On the other hand, if the advertiser refuses to get dragged into that kind of talk and goes back to the language in his ad that he does not accept money for sexual acts and any fee will be for his time only, I should think that without more evidence, this would be a much harder case to prove. Not necessarily impossible, depending on the context and other details, but certainly harder.
 
The only concern I would have about this kind of disclaimer, particularly for those advertisers who are actually sex workers, is that it might lure them into having a false sense of security. They should remember that there is no set of legalish sounding “magic words” that will transform an illegal activity into a legal one. If the State can prove that they are in fact engaging in illegal activity, a disclaimer to the contrary in their advertisement will not protect them.

One, we need to quit relying on gov to save us. That time is passing. And two, I believe I mentioned those that wear a condom and use prep at the same time. Which is a good thing.
 
Hugs,
Greg

We've done the 3 Rs (Reduce Reuse Recycle) for nearly two decades. It's much easier here in Southern California than it was in other parts of the country. We sort things at home, well the kids do--because we're monsters that make our kids pitch in around the house. They take the CRV recycling to the local recycler for money they get to keep. It's barely a tenth of their allowance, but they always want to do it. It's also helped us eliminate wasteful crap like bottled water when our daughter freaked out after learning about the huge plastic islands in the oceans. She demanded a ban on bottled water at home and fought for it at school. Reusable glass water bottles became all the rage. So, yes we're "those neighbors" who recycle.

Recycling has been legally mandated here since 2006. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Mandatory-recycling-program-working-well-1198413.php
 
We also have mandatory food waste composting. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/New-Seattle-law-No-more-food-in-trash-5983805.php
 
However, the courts recently ruled that the city is not allowed to inspect people’s garbage to see if they are in compliance. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/14/trash-talk-seattle-war-on-waste.html Still, I always recycle and compost, in part because the rates for garbage collection incentivize this, in part because the city makes it easy to do, but mostly because I try to be a good person.

The work is for future generations, you goddamn pessimist...
 
Yes to recycling, reducing, reusing

While Hollinghurst’s novels are fundamentally literary rather than pornographic, there are certainly explicit sections, and I've really enjoyed everything I've read of his; most recently, The Spell and The Line of Beauty. I can also recommend Reinaldo Arenas. Before Night Falls gives a frank assessment of gay life in Castro’s Cuba, including a fair amount of gay sex.