stevenkesslar

Can't a guy get a break around here? I mean, your well hung buddy Peter is the thoughtful one. And I even spelled the word "entrepreneur" right. He's the one with a god damn speech at the end of every post. All I say is that I am a humble, ignorant whore. Well, okay. My tag line doesn't actually say I'm humble. And at least now I can prove I'm ignorant.

From the article: "But it was Congress’s concern about privacy issues that dominated regulation talk, perhaps natural given the ostensible reason for the hearings. Sen. Dick Durbin pressed Zuckerberg, saying, “I think that may be what this is all about. Your right to privacy. The limits of your right to privacy. And how much you give away in modern America, in the name of, quote, connecting people around the world.” Likewise, Sen. Maria Cantwell Zuckerberg over a consent decree Facebook entered into with the Federal Trade Commission in 2011. The Washington Post wrote that the decree language “was written to require Facebook to identify and address emerging threats to user privacy as its business practices changed over the 20-year term of the consent decree.” Cantwell expressed skepticism that Zuckerberg and his company were adhering to the terms of that agreement. “When … I look at where you are from the 2011 consent decree and where you are today, I’m thinking, ‘Is this guy outfoxing the foxes, or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information age: to try to harvest information for political forces?’” I agree with Durbin and Cantwell. The takeaway should be the protection of privacy. I avoid Facebook and Twitter like an STD. To me they encourage mass stupidity. If you need proof, here it is: The antidote to mass stupidity are magazines like The Economist. Even Fox & Friends is genius material compared to Twitter. As much as it might help matters if everybody read The Economist every week, that's a tough standard I can't meet. But what The Economist is saying now is right. It's time for the US to pass some law like Europe's new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Priority #1 should be protecting the data privacy of Americans.

I'd like to take it much further than that and say THANK YOU Guy for sticking up for freedom of speech. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/17155110/craigslist-personal-ads-anti-sex-trafficking-bill Anybody who runs a website is now vulnerable. Whether it's Craiglists personals or Twitter missed connections, it's understandable that many are making a decision to just go silent. That is a sad day for freedom of speech. So every day we get to come to this online community is also a reason to celebrate and be grateful. We haven't stopped being a country governed by the rule of law, judges, and juries. Lawyers can argue whatever they want, and politicians can pass misguided laws. But that doesn't mean rule of law or elections or common sense just goes away. My hope is that we all double down on fierce devotion to freedom of speech. Part of the problem with Backpage is that while they used freedom of speech as a defense, it appears they actually were making millions of dollars in ads involving sex trafficking. I don't see ads like that here. So every day we are practicing and defending freedom of speech, I think the purpose of this forum speaks for itself. My hope is that we also all double down on fierce devotion to fighting sex trafficking. Whether you call it FOSTA or SESTA, the key words in both bills are sex trafficking. The core goals are to stop enabling sex traffickers, and to empower the victims of sex trafficking. It's pretty clear that how we do that is going to get way more complicated for a while. Forget for a minute about "facilitating prostitution." We've now just entered a Twilight Zone were there are AI-based website filters that will try to figure out whether people talking about going to a floral shop or buying a used car online are actually sex traffickers in disguise. The dust hasn't even begun to settle. And at least one company - Recognant - is selling the idea that up to 20,000 words or phrases may be suspect. It's understandable to me why some people or websites might just prefer silence if there are now 20,000 unique ways to sound like a sex trafficker. As a community of predominantly older Gay men, we know more than a little bit about being victims of oppression. We know what it's like to live in a country where the way you want to have consensual sex with other Gay adults is a crime. We know what it's like to live in a country where you can't meet the man of your dreams, fall in love, get married, and have the same legal protections as everyone else. We've been in the victim role a lot. So it's not hard to relate to the victims of sex trafficking. One thing I actually like about the current environment is that every American who goes online is getting an education, like it or not, about how this is a national problem that won't just go away. I think the plain meanings of words and the subtext of words eventually speak for themselves. Ultimately, Backpage could not hide what they were doing. Ultimately, I think the best way to thank Guy is to be what we are: an online community of LGBTQ people of every political persuasion that is passionately for freedom of speech and passionately against sexual oppression and sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking. If Guy ever has to defend this website and this community in front of a judge or jury or the editorial board of The New York Times, I think that is our best defense. Walker1 is right that if you don't defend your freedoms, you lose them. For me today is a day to ground ourselves in being a community that respects each other, has nothing to hide, and has lots to be proud of. I'm drinking to that at Oliver's pool party this weekend. Actually, I may drink to it a lot. Thank you, Guy, for guiding us wisely through this storm. I hope we will have many more parties and reasons to celebrate in the years to come.

Seriously, what's the difference? You might want to bone up on Saul Alinsky or Lao Tzu. And, no, "bone up" is not a sexual euphemism. It is an intellectual challenge. "Keep your enemy on his heels. Play the game in such a way that you are completely unpredictable, and it will drive your enemy crazy trying to figure out what you will do next. Never allow him to relax. When he tries to relax, that is when you hit him hard. When he is strong and ready, sit back, be patient, and relax while he is stress, pumped up, and ready to go. Attack your enemy’s mind, and many times, he will defeat himself." https://thewisdomwarrior.com/2015/05/23/devious-strategies-to-defeat-your-enemies/ Our industry ain't going away. Yeah, maybe the web version has been around since 2000. But as an industry, it's been around a little longer than that. Right now, the moral warriors are strong and ready to roll. So one step to think about right now is this: let's stay out of their way. It's a good time to let them exhaust themselves. And by that I don't mean let's not talk to Congress about how ridiculous this law is. I mean let's not make it easy for them to go after us. It's inevitable that they are going to trip all over themselves and create a backlash. What we don't know is how quickly, and how much backlash. http://sesta-fosta.com/ How many "legitimate" people get pissed off by this new Prohibition remains to be seen. But at least one filtering service is suggesting that used car ads and ads for floral shops can be sex trafficking in disguise. So words relating to that should now apparently be filtered. It sounds like an absurd extreme. But if it gets to the point that you can't buy flowers or used cars online anymore, that will build indignation and undermine this law. The essential job of the government under FOSTA is supposed to be to fight sex traffickers, not make it hard to buy flowers or used cars online. So I'm not suggesting we shouldn't stand up for our rights and freedoms. We should. We should fight back. Ducking and hiding and driving the sumbitches absolutely fucking crazy is one perfectly fine way to fight back, I think.

And the garbage disposal. And it sure hurts to be made to feel like trash.

I'd bet money that this is exactly why Congress, in their wisdom, threw the word "prostitution" in a bill that is supposed to be about nonconsensual sex trafficking. It makes it easier to prove that you are doing something wrong. What they've now done is officially made most of the internet sex traffickers. I'm sorry, but horrible people who sell, rape, and murder Mexican girls are going to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and every other website to bring these girls to market. It is 1000 % certain this will happen. Wellstone (Paul and Sheila) had this brilliant concept: let's empower those Mexican girls to flee and get help before they are sold, raped, and possibly murdered. Whether that's on a website, in a cantina, or in a locked room - if they can somehow escape. FOSTA does not do that. FOSTA creates a huge legal and semantic quagmire for every website around that traffickers try to use, involving questions like this: 1) What is prostitution? 2) What is "knowingly facilitate?" They solved one huge problem by creating a nightmare.

Okay, I took my medication. So no more bad jokes. I'm back to being boring and serious. That's the other thing about FOSTA that gives escorts the huge upper hand - no pun intended. At the margin, at least, it empowers an entreprenuerial escort with a cell phone. Again, read the DOJ letter. At the margin, it disempowers national or international websites, even ones that are mostly about consensual sex (See Craigslist). The key questions about escorts are pretty simple: 1) What do they actually do? 2) What do they charge for what they do? We're at the point where I think Gay sex is okay now, even if most Straight people don't want to hear about it. So I can say I am going to get together with some Gay guy and suck his cock, and as long as I don't mention anything about whether there was a rate for that, I think that's just protected freedom of speech. I think I could post a picture of his cock, and it would be protected freedom of speech. Even though Google Drive might say it violates their TOS. My point is that the simple and most obvious thing to do is just get rid of any discussion or written information that has anything to do with rates, period. If I were a local escort trying to steer clear of FOSTA, that's what I would do, and that's what I'd expect websites to do. If you aren't charging for it, it's not illegal. How this all sorts itself out remains to be seen. But I doubt that the Brave New World is going to be one where no website can be used for two Gay men to hook up online, including for the purpose of having consensual sex. So my guess is that as the dust settles, websites - which are the clear targets of FOSTA - may determine that as long as you're not talking about charging for what you do, it's good. As an escort, I don't see that as a problem. I could argue it's an opportunity. As a consumer, it's a whole different matter.

She's moved on. She's clearly going for a Tony. Which is an award. Think that through. Last time you and I got into a bitch session about somebody trying to get an award, your instincts ended up being right. I think we're both pretty smart, so this time you ought to be considering it's my turn. So I just wouldn't fuck with Mocha if she's going for her Tony. There's nothing in FOSTA that says it's illegal. So just let her have it.

You are known as the poster child for thoughtful entrepreneur. And I am known as super serious. Is there any surprise here? I took your question as a joke. But it is still an excellent serious question. But on a really serious note, it just pisses me off to no end that I don't get the word "hung" in my name. So don't push it.

If they make a Broadway musical of it, I'll consult. As long as I get a share of the box office. And I suppose your agenda is you want to be the first Black escort to win a Tony for Best Musical Score. I'm up for that. Next thing you know we'll be celebrity escorts competing on Dancing With The Stars. That could actually be just the ticket to open hearts and minds on this topic.

Thank you for saying this, for several reasons. A huge chunk of consumers value discretion and privacy above just about anything else. And that's not about anything they do being illegal. For many, it's simply about being Gay. They are older, it was before we won the culture wars, and they don't want to be out. Or they are bisexual and married. That's one of the most valuable tools of law enforcement. The overt or implicit threat is we will out you, and make you look like a filthy creep. That has several implications here. One implication is - hate to say - you actually confirmed the OP's logic. For some providers and consumers a "less is more" approach could make lots of sense, where you drop out of the market - or the online market dumps you, because there is a holy war going on against national websites that create any type of consensual market for - egads! -sex. Bars or cruises (or colored handkerchiefs) are an obvious alternative, but not everyone wants to go back to the future. So, to piggyback your word, the government just created a supply shock, and in that environment some providers and consumers might decide there is a "premium" on certain things - like discretion and anonymity. That's their business, if they choose. When I read the OP's post, it was clear - he made it clear - that this originated from the female side of the market, which is most of the market. Women (and children) are the ones the cops and advocates will hold up as victims. Female escorts always have and always will be the lead players in the escort community in any political organizing, like past efforts to decriminalize or future efforts to fight FOSTA. (That's basically true for anything. If you want to organize for same sex marriage, the stereotype was that you should organize lesbians). The "Gay" part of the equation is significant here. For some people it means doubling down on the stigma of it all. They want their relationships with Gay escorts to be discreet. That's both because of the Gay part, and the escort part. Other Gay consumers are perfectly happy to dive in the pool publicly with escorts - naked even. If you don't believe me, I promise to take pictures of it this weekend. That has organizing implications. This isn't a thread primarily about organizing, but I keep running all this through both my entrepreneur filter, and my organizer filter. I bring it up because this gives us a way to fight FOSTA that the female escort community doesn't have. As soon as you say Gay - at least to a liberal Democrat - you are now considered to be a minority deserving of compassion and protection, not a creep. So while it's important to understand that many people reading this would have no interest in saying a peep in public about their relationships with Gay escorts, it's also realistic to think others would be willing to, if they thought it might make a difference. Escorting is built around local markets. There's a reason why when you go to any website like Backpage or Craiglist the first thing you do is click on a local market area. That right there is an empowerment tool for us, I think. When I started escorting in Portland there was - and from what I can see there still is - a relatively small local market of escorts. I knew most other providers anyways, in several cases before I became a provider. FOSTA puts a premium on this way of thinking. I posted the DOJ letter earlier in this thread. It as much as says that if you want to fly under the FOSTA radar and not end up in the net, get a cell phone and use it. Avoid national websites. I think one impact it will have is put an emphasis back on local markets. And, sorry, traffickers will be all over Facebook and other websites, and so will escorts. Twitter is already banning accounts that sound too much like you're selling something you shouldn't be selling. People will figure out how to work around that. This will be like Prohibition. We'll play endless whack a mole, with all kinds of broad collateral damage to the Web and freedom of speech. I think that will gradually undercut public support for a misguided holy war. Meanwhile, we ought to be thinking about how to use local markets to our advantage, both as providers and consumers. That was part of the spirit of the OP's proposal that I very much liked, even though it was not a unifying way to say it. That's easy. Nobody. The word I like for escorts is entrepreneurs. Most ones I know tend to be most concerned about running a small personal service business. It does not lend itself to organizing. So it makes sense to me that discussions about resisting FOSTA should play to the strengths of escorts, by first and foremost building around escorts' natural entrepreneurial skills. (The OP's proposal was a clear attempt to do that, like it or not). Part of my argument is that escorts and providers can use local markets to, at the very least, ride out the storm. At best, they can use them to undermine a misguided law. Note that the OP started out by talking about the Houston market. That makes sense to me. What happens in Houston should probably be different than what happens in San Francisco or Palm Springs , where maybe at some point opening a public debate about decriminalization makes sense. We should be thinking about how to build various kinds of economic and political fortresses, locally. Time to put our thinking caps on. (Sorry, I know y'all prefer being naked. Just deal with it, okay?) Here's another thing about local markets. A different way of saying that we are organized in local markets is saying we are organized in almost every Congressional district of the US. When it comes to FOSTA, that matters a lot. In my lifetime I'm met with lots and lots of elected officials, and also with my share of erected officials. Most escorts I know are more likely to have met a public official as an escort in private than as a citizen or advocate in public. So in that sense I know I'm a bit of a freak. But we are actually organized in the same way cops are. And my guess is that we actually outnumber cops - especially if "us" means both providers and consumers. But cops are very good at intimidating us, and we generally let them do it. So there are other elements about local markets here that just make sense to me, that we ought to be thinking about. One of the main opponents of FOSTA, who I won't name because these are all searchable data bases, single-handedly helped me get a $200,000 grant for a project I organized a few decades ago. I organized a meeting in a church in which hundreds of people applauded while he announced a program to help them. One of his Congressional colleagues was also in that packed church, not as an elected official but as one of the advocates, who I'd organized to be there. So the idea of sitting down with these people to talk about the local implications of this misguided law in their state or district doesn't bother me at all. It makes total sense. Granted, it would be weird to now be addressing them as an escort. But it would also be fun. And I'd only want to do it if someone else in the room was from the ACLU, who talked about freedom of speech, and someone else in the room was from an LGBTQ organization, who talked about how Gay men who use these websites are not sex traffickers. They are your constituents, and they vote for you. That's a form of cartel that I could see making a big difference, and that I'd very much like to be a part of - in Portland, or anywhere. Back to where I started, HotWhiteThirties is absolutely right that discretion and privacy is a premium, and that is a reality anything we do should be grounded in. We can use that to our advantage as well, I think. I think most politicians know that most people don't want to actually get involved in politics. So if you go have an honest discussion with them about how an important part of your constituency doesn't much like this law, and thinks it will do more harm than good, they kind of figure out without actually having to be told that it could cost them either votes or campaign contributions, or both, and they tend to listen and at least take you seriously.

I'm not sure I do. I could post a library of stories about legalized prostitution in places like Germany that kind of make it sound like it's a great way to traffick Ukrainian women - just legally. The folks who brought us FOSTA are not about to turn around 180 degrees and decriminalize. Some of them seem to think that a broad version of Prohibition makes sense. It's hard enough to fight all trafficking. let alone all prostitution and all websites. If you haven't read it yet, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's statement on his vote against FOSTA, which is on Daddy's main review page today, is excellent: http://www.daddysreviews.com/news Part of what has to happen now is what happened with what could be called the Porn Prohibition version of the Communications Decency Act in the 1990's. It has to be allowed to fail. Maybe FOSTA will be deemed unconstitutional in part or whole. Or maybe it just won't work very well. There will be lots of time to stir up an ongoing debate about how it's not working, and why it's not working, and what might make sense instead. If decriminalization is a goal, the first question is: where? Generally prostitution has been a state and local issue. Probably the best thing would be to keep the Feds out of it. They certainly didn't just display their deep understanding of the issue. I think FOSTA will likely gradually create a backlash that could build support for local decriminalization - in places like San Francisco, where you could also tie it to strong anti-trafficking measures. The equivalent of what's alleged to be happening in Germany would be if San Francisco decriminalized prostitution, but also allowed legal "sanctuary brothels" filled with lots of undocumented Mexican immigrants. That would cause a backlash, too. There have been decriminalization initiatives before that at least got in the ballpark of passing. So the first questions are: Where? And how? There is at least one obvious model: decriminalizing pot. So far, it seems like the best all purpose argument is this: since we've now figured out we can't get rid of it, let's regulate it and tax it. Let's fight the worse stuff, like opioids. It's not a leap to say you could make the same distinction between tolerating consensual relationships with college-educated female escorts and cracking down on involuntary sex slavery with trafficked women. I think we've learned that just labeling all such women as criminals doesn't help. I don't think anyone knows, but survey after survey suggests that time is not on our side on this, like it is with same sex marriage. The younger you are, the more likely you are to support same sex marriage. That's mostly true for other "identity politics" issues - like trangendered members of the military. But it appears that the people who are most against prostitution, including decriminalization, are younger people - particularly younger women. My guess is that the way many think of it is "prostitution = sexism" or "prostitution = slavery." The very notion of "identity politics" could be part of the answer. One word I know I like a lot is empowerment. And you are right that being visible is both one of the hardest things to do, and one of the most important things to do. So stories or interviews about how it empowers women to have escort websites that allow them to run their own businesses sends a better message. (There were some great stories like that about Gay escorts during the Rentboy fiasco). Meanwhile, another message is that shutting down Craiglist disempowers a lot of "legitimate" people who used it to meet, date, or marry. And shutting down Backpage in and of itself could further disempower many trafficked women, by driving them into windowless brothers or bars or the dark web. That's all part of a message that could makes sense. The huge flaw in my "identity politics" argument is that unlike being Gay or Black or transgender, with prostitution you can't say "I was born this way." I think people view it as a choice - and a bad choice. If there is a parallel, the closest I can think of is undocumented immigrants - starting with whether you call them "undocumented immigrants" you try to legitimize and help or "illegal aliens" you try to demonize and deport. I won't repeat my whole post on TVPA in the politics section, but one trafficked woman talked about how her pimp wouldn't even let her have a cell phone or a Facebook page. That right there is a big clue that empowerment is an issue. Driving victims off the web and into windowless rooms where they don't have access to the internet or cell phones isn't really a good solution. For right now I think the biggest challenge is figuring out how to magnify the message that FOSTA isn't working - and here's why and here's how. It's going to take a lot of time to get to what might work better, let alone build support for it. But going back to what the TVPA did well - empower women and kids who are victims of trafficking - that is a start, because DOJ itself says that led to a 360 % increased in convictions of traffickers. I know one of the national LGBTQ activists who actually had a lot to do with the language change you described. She happens to be Straight herself. I actually had a twofer coming out with her, and the difference in her reactions was telling. She was one of the first people I came out to as Gay, and her reaction was almost celebratory. It is instinctual with her, I think, both as a liberal and as a Straight woman who was very good at expressing her complete openness to anyone who isn't Straight. Much later I came out to her as a male escort, and it actually really troubled her. I actually never found a good way to get around that. I think particularly for strong, feminist women it's a little bit like saying, "I'm for oppression." Having said that, the Harvey Milk rule applies. At least on a personal level, when I've told people what I do and why, they eventually get it. Just like knowing someone who is Gay made a difference, knowing someone who is an escort or who hires them makes a difference. There are millions and millions and millions of people who hire escorts who are not assholes and traffickers. That right there is probably our most important pr tool. But I don't think we have a clue how to actually use it. We just let the cops demonize us, pretty much every time. So now we do know the consequences of silence or near silence: FOSTA. My guess is we were mostly portrayed as Satan's warriors by law enforcement. Think that through. Because if I am right, it should scare you. Having just won their moral victory, law enforcement will now have the burden of proving that they were right, and we are in fact tools of Satan. So at the very least, we have to be very good at demonstrating that we are not Satan. Hmm. Speaking of which ................... I think law enforcement's best argument is also their Achilles heel. Essentially what they wanted is shiny new tools to rid the world of traffickers. Over time, I think what will emerge is that the tools don't work well, and their enforcement hasn't been what they promised. While they will take out low hanging fruit (Backpage) on the Web, which FOSTA was not required to do, they will also drive a lot trafficking to other places, where it will be no easier to find and prosecute. Meanwhile, they will have fucked up the Web for millions of "legitimate" users. Since I've now completely redirected this from where the OP started, let me go back to Blake's initial post - if any of you remember it. You all did a fine job beating it to death. But forget about the higher rates, which you obviously don't like. Focus on the idea of hunkering down and thinking on "quality of life" and "peace of mind" and "safety," both as providers, and of clients of those providers. I like the intent behind that, a lot. Again, I view it as resistance. The burden is now on law enforcement to prove FOSTA works. That means its kind of open season on "traffickers," however that is defined. That in itself would explain the motivation for shutting down Backpage before the law is even signed. So I like the intent of saying, "Let's get ahead of the curve as providers. Let's stay out of the way of this mess that is about to occur. And let's show what a better model could look like." That what I read into the idea. And I still love it. If I run it through my own lens, I would not focus on rates. I think most everyone is agreeing that the market will determine rates, and we just don't know how that will work yet. You may not like the idea of "cartels," but there really ought to be serious discussion about the idea of local providers banding together, to figure out how to create something that is better than the mess law enforcement could create, left to their own resources. Which are now, thanks in part to our silence and submission, perhaps greater than ever before.

Yes. That just seems very vague. What kind of milk? Can it be chocolate milk? And what if I only like Oreos?

I know I can sound like a know it all, so let me say it loud and clear: I AM TOTALLY FUCKING IGNORANT! I don't really have a clue what's going to happen, and I don't think any of us do. Which is partly my point. I think we should at least be trying to steer, not react. I've avoided trying to speak for Zachary or Blake, and I'm certainly not going to start now. I took what they said somewhat differently. What I took them to mean - in my own words - is that there's a "less is more" option available to at least some escorts, who can charge higher rates to fewer regulars. I assume Zachary isn't just making up his understanding of his own business, even though he's gotten a lot of shit for it. You could think of it as the Donald Trump rule, to go to the absurd extreme. $130,000 was not too high a price to pay for discretion, in his case. And that was just for somebody to keep her mouth shut - after she spanked him, or whatever you care to believe she did. Of course, not everybody is Donald Trump. Thank God for that! Beyond that, I may be ignorant, but I'm not stupid. I knew I was sort of aligning myself with a proposal that was going to get shit all over. And, no, I'm not into scat. I like debate, and this has been interesting. So if this were just a random debate about economy theory, I'd go back to my college econ class. Of course demand is usually elastic. If prices go up, demand will likely go down. There are exceptions. Your "cartel" point was a good one. I'd argue Congress just did an excellent job of creating a "cartel-ish" artificial constraint on supply, where higher end clients might gravitate toward higher end escorts for safety's sake. Which is the exact opposite of the point I tried to make about decriminalizing in Germany. That increased supply, by giving consumers access to any lower-end Ukrainian "girl" they wanted. (With all due respect to the women of Ukraine). I'm really not interested in debating economic theory for the purpose of debate, though. I hope that's clear. So I'll repeat my main point: we ought to be thinking about how to resist, and what we actually want. If not this, what then?

The only problem with what you are saying is this: is "business as usual" even an option? I don't think we know. But at least some people are saying and feeling that we're all like that band on the Titanic. Which is why I agree with Eric. Let's not panic. I think these kinds of thoughtful debates are exactly what needs to happen. Lots and lots of them. I'd also suggest maybe we should be asking whether "business as usual" is the problem, in this sense. When Rentboy was shuttered, I think the reaction could be characterized this way. "Don't panic. There's plenty of other websites. Business as usual." When SESTA and FOSTA were being debated, a lot of people I know and respect yawned. It's perfectly fair to trash this proposal now and say, "Don't panic. Business as usual." But at some point, "business as usual" just may not be an option. I've been in this business for a while, and I wouldn't describe what's happening right now as "usual." PK did a very good job of taking the other side of this debate, and I think he hit on a key point: demand. What if most consumers run for cover? That's exactly what the people who dished out FOSTA are probably hoping for, by trying to cut off supply. What if demand plummets? You think escorts desperate to pay the rent are going to raise their rates? Come on! The "business as usual" mindset actually sort of goes to what Zachary was arguing - that clients won't go away, and demand won't be as "elastic" as some people think or hope. (Sorry, had to throw something in about rubbers in, I guess.) Like I said, I think this is the debate we should have been having a year or two or three ago. Right now partly we just have to wait and see what law enforcement does, and how the internet and "the market" responds. But I wouldn't assume we can count on "business as usual."

I don't know what the big deal about Christian mums is. But of course I'm totally biased. That's what happens when you are the son of the Church Lady. It's hard having a celebrity mum, honestly. And I blame her for messing me up. She was always bringing celebrity whores home. And if y'all ask me to define whore, I'm gonna sick my mum on you.

That's actually my point. Silk Road was a dark web market for things like illegal drugs and guns. The moderator of this forum may own a handgun, but I think he purchased and owns it legally. If you go hang out in a place where illegal things occur, that can create a perception problem. But it doesn't stop the Feds from busting you if you are actually doing illegal things. I really don't know, which is why I asked. But I would guess that DOJ and the FBI pay particularly close attention to what happens on the dark web. You are absolutely right, that I have no desire to spend any time on this, really. I mostly post in the politics forum, and I like spending my time and money on things like getting Democrats elected and debating with people who think Trump is great. So to me this isn't about being righteous. It's about survival. Wherever this forum is located on the web, the only reason to be concerned about the First Amendment is that I think we ought to be able to have freedom of speech and not have to worry about the government trying to silence us because of what we say. Let me say it a positive way. One perfectly legal and admirable reason people can choose to go to the dark web is that they place a high value on civil liberties, or privacy, or libertarian thinking. That's why I quoted that part of the description of the dark web above: it "is important because it provides privacy and anonymity to users around the world." So if the idea is to go to the dark web because we want more privacy, and it's technically easy, I get that. I think my point was that if I can download Tor, so can everyone. Did I mention that I actually work for the FBI, by the way, and that my purpose for being on this forum is to make sure that no illegal sex trafficking is occurring here? Just kidding. But I assume that anyone who wants to monitor any website, including and website on the dark web, can just come up with a profile, download Tor, and Viola! They are in. Rentmen seems to have clearly decided that even though they are not legally domiciled in the United States, they are going to be a poster child for compliance with US laws. I think that's the smart thing to do. That's why I put that seizure notice up. It seems to say that if the US doesn't like what some company outside the US is doing, "hidden sites" can be seized by "European law enforcement agencies." And I'm not comparing Rentmen to Silk Road, either. I'm saying that Rentmen is smart for realizing they ought to be focused on compliance.

I strongly agree with your sentiments and really appreciate the fact that you said this. I hit the like button. Lest I be accused of wanting to have it both ways, I wanted to go back to what the OP said in his initial post and underscore something I view as complex, rather than black and white. This is from the OP's original post: "This one act when done in unison by all providers across the country will bring higher quality clients, making your work environment safer AND more profitable. This is only possible if everyone does it. We must stand together in unison as sex-workers. If you can respond to this letter with a simple ‘yes’ you are committing to bettering the quality of your life and future." I think the meaning of those words are pretty clear. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and if you choose to view that paragraph as saying money is the only thing that matters, that's your right. That's not what it says to me. The entire post does include the words "more profitable," But it also uses the words "safer environment" and "quality of your life and future." I've spent years talking about this issue with consumers or clients or whatever word you prefer to call them. While the OP was speaking from the perspective of providers, I am 1000 % sure a lot of consumers share exactly the same concerns about safety and quality, and many will go in exactly the same direction. They are what is referred to above as "higher quality clients." These are not people who wish to respond to some fake NYPD ad and get busted and publicly labelled as a "creep." They are generous already. And if safety and security are an elevated concern - which they could be - they will likely be willing and able to get what they pay for. None of us own crystal balls, so none of us actually know how bad this is going to get. I spent a long time on the phone yesterday with one of the people who makes the Palm Springs event so special, and we both were asking each other whether this will be the last one. Both of us have helped Oliver for years, and neither of us felt like we could really say. So you are exactly right. There is fear. And it's never good to simply act out of fear. Part of my intent from the first post to the OP, on a different thread, was to stress the word unity. Another intent of mine was to stress the word resist. I chose the word because I think it has both political dimensions - let's resist Trump! - and economic dimensions - let's resist this law by focusing on high quality regular clients. Many people are going to be afraid, and some people are going to want to resist. I'm 1000 % sure that there are many consumers here who want nothing to do with political resistance. They are actually the ones who might be more likely to pay more to hire an escort who they know isn't going to turn out to be a flake - or worse, a cop. That could become more of a concern in the brave new world. Others will be willing to resist politically. That very much has to sort itself out. Especially at times like this, it is very important to respect each other, and to respect each other's choices. The question I'm going to keep asking, rhetorically, is this: Fine. If you don't like this form of resistance, what form do you like? Or do you just not like the idea of resistance at all? Eric could not be more correct. That's one to think long and hard about. And we shouldn't be coming up with our answers based on fear or panic.

First of all, he wasn't my boyfriend. He may have thought he was my future fiance, but we now all know that he thought a lot of crazy things. Secondly, could you just delete that post, and I will delete this one? Let's let sleeping dogs lie, okay? Or should I say sleeping pit bulls? The whole thing caused a tremendous amount of pain to a lot of good people who tried to deal with him in good faith, starting with the moderator of this site and going on down, and including me. It will do no good to resurrect his lies and bullshit. Thankfully, it's over. Please let's just hit delete, okay?

I've actually always wondered why women get higher rates. There are few if any other job sectors in the US where women make more than men, even when it's the same job. Here, they make a lot more than men, it seems. What this thread really is about is business models, rates, and supply and demand. So what struck me for the first time reading your posts is - duh! - it may have something to do with supply and demand. The demand mostly comes from men, and they mostly want women. While some of them may want men, instead or as well, there are fewer of them. And perhaps given the culture of the Gay community, there are more options for you to find guys, and also more Gay guys who feel comfortable getting paid to provide. You can think whatever you want, I guess. But it's probably at least in part another example of supply and demand at work.

I very much enjoyed this thread, and thought it was - to understate it - thought provoking. I actually spent much of the day yesterday wondering what I would do if I were a young escort just starting out. (Other than going to the gym more, of course). We're all partly pretending we have crystal balls. So mostly this is speculation and bullshit. But if I base it on my own reality, and go to some of the worse case scenarios, I think Blake and Zachary not only made sense. They didn't go far enough. Here's the bumper sticker theme of this post: "Back To The Future." For me, personally, that actually means back to 2000. Not quite Marty McFly, but close. To paint a realistic picture of one possible future, let me turn to a credible source: the US Dept. of Justice, circa 2018. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4390361/Views-Ltr-Re-H-R-1865-Allow-States-and-Victims.pdf Here's the part of the letter I'm referring to. DOJ basically is approving of the intent and most of the language of FOSTA, shortly before it passed. They strongly endorse the idea of going after "interactive computer services" that cross state and national lines. Then they say the following, relating to "situations where there is minimal federal interest: such as instances in which an individual person uses a cell phone to manage local commercial sex transactions involving consenting adults." One way you can read this DOJ letter is this. If you want to fly under the federal radar, this is what you should do. And guess what? It's almost exactly what I did the first year I escorted. Would I like to go back to that? No. If forced to, could I survive doing so? Yes. Granted, I wasn't working off a "cell phone," because there weren't iPhones yet. Substitute "laptop." I used to get online in AOL and other chat rooms, and troll clients. It was not an efficient business model. But it worked. There were moderators in chat rooms that noticed my screen name included "escort," and they kicked me out. So I came up with another screen name, and went back in. The other way you can think about it is that sitting at a desk with a laptop was better than standing on a rainy or cold street corner with drug addicts. At some point in my first year, I got a review on this site called "Hooboy." And then another. And another. And I started to develop "regulars." And it was off to the races. In retrospect, I feel lucky that I stumbled into the right place at pretty much the right time. No more chat rooms. The world came to me. So what if all the reviews and all the websites suddenly went away? It would suck. It would definitely be more like my first year, which was harder. But I actually think it would probably suck more for clients than providers. In a riskier world, would some demand go away? Almost certainly. Would most go away? Almost certainly not. I can count the number of assholes I met on maybe one hand. If the more marginal people went away, to be very blunt it would probably just mean even fewer assholes. This website in particular was an absolute gold mine. It is chock full of kind and sophisticated men, with resources and good taste and good hearts. If this website goes away tomorrow, will all of you go away? Almost certainly not. How would you find me? I don't have a clue. But it wouldn't be rocket science. My business model was always based on a relatively small group of "regulars." The reason to have short appointments with new clients was not to make money. It was to sift through and find good new "regulars." So the idea that in a post-FOSTA world, more escorts would connect with more "regulars" who would pay a premium for having reliable and safe service providers doesn't shock me. I'd argue it's predictable, and almost inevitable. Would local cartels form? Probably. But if I get to use my word, I'm calling them "bedtels." I just checked, and there's about a dozen escorts listed in Portland now, where I was based when I started. Back when I started, there were also about a dozen then, and I knew most of them. One was my best friend. Another worked out at my gym. I quickly got to know the other ones. We shared clients. Sometimes we serviced clients together. Was there sordid collusion? Honestly, yes. That stud who worked out at my gym did me the huge favor of actually plagiarizing the words in my online profile. So I busted him, and used that as an excuse to invite him to my home, where he did me the even huger favor of fucking the shit out of me. (I didn't pay, nor did he. I'm not a prostitute, after all. It was consensual adult Gay sex). Now, in a post-FOSTA world, would we be a little bit more concerned about having each other's backs (no, not literally) and colluding to keep our asses out of the slammer (no! no! not literally!)? I suspect we would. Is that a "cartel?" I dunno. We were just a bunch of young pricks, I guess. But what the OP was talking about in Houston makes sense to me. Smart escorts would likely unite, in some way. I actually feel sorry for all these poor "interactive computer services" DOJ is potentially targeting. Because I don't really think either supply or demand will be stopped. AOL chat rooms may be gone. So now I'd probably just have a website, call myself a "performer," and find whatever places on Instagram or Facebook or some other website got me access to the same great people who found me on escort review websites. And I'm pretty sure those "regulars" would be looking, as well. If I'm reading what DOJ says in the letter above correctly, it doesn't put me at any greater risk. It does put the website at risk. And if you feel like what any escort said so far on this thread is opportunistic or exploitative, just wait. Imagine a world without review websites, without posted rates, where "performers" offer vague services, and there is little or no accountability. My hunch is some clients might prefer that world, because it is more exciting. Most won't. It is also more Cruising, to take it to the extreme. The people who breathe life into websites like this one ain't stupid. So even if the website went away, I'm pretty sure escorts who do their job well would be well connected, and well compensated. (If only I were well hung, then it would be a hat trick!) The more interesting question to me is this: how much trial and error would you have to go through to find good escorts? Rates of course matter. But a lot of other things matter to clients as much or in some cases more. FOSTA will likely increase a desire to avoid risk. In a world like that, I really don't think it's fair to blame Zachary or Blake or other escorts for thinking like businessmen. If you read the words in the DOJ letter, I'd argue it's pretty much what DOJ is actually encouraging them to do. You can call it a "cartel" if you want. Or you can call it getting organized at the local level, and trying to fly under the radar and survive. The cops and moral warriors have more than they can handle already, with real sex traffickers - not to mention any website they might choose to pick on now. Give me my cell phone and escort buddies, thank you, and I'll do just fine. It may sound like I am advocating higher rates. I actually am not. And I most definitely am not advocating higher rates as a "protest." I'm advocating resistance, and survival - however escorts choose to do it. I think I feel the way most people do. What is happening feels wrong, and it breaks my heart. But it is happening, and most people don't have a plan to fight it. So if that is a fair description of reality, I don't begrudge escorts for wanting to plan and resist and survive.

LOL. Great idea. Been there, done that. Back during the same sex marriage fight I started a "Fuck For Freedom" campaign in which I donated 10 % of my fee to EQCA (the CA group fighting from same sex marriage) and asked clients to match it. Of course, if all I did is donate a part of my standard fee, that's basically not a client contribution. As it turned out, the additional 10 % some clients donated was what I usually got as a tip, anyway. I was happy. I donated a lot of money to EQCA, and got friends and family to do so as well. It was mainly a gimmick to just promote an issue I felt strongly about, albeit in a weird way. I should also mention I am absolutely paranoid when it comes to politics, and I feared all it would take is some far right group to find my post and allege that this is being pushed by Gay escorts. That would have done more harm than good. Fortunately, I'm just a small little fish, and I had fun raising some money for a good and winning cause. I was also part of the group of escorts that raised money for Rentboy's defense. Kurtis Wolfe was an unsung hero - he was the biggest donor on the Rentboy defense fund site, and if I recall right he donated a percentage of his fees. Speaking of resistance, I still can't believe how much resistance there was to the idea of raising money to defend a website so many people concerned used constantly. People can and did criticize the way they were asked - not what I said, but what others did. But I felt there should have been a spontaneous groundswell of support, and there wasn't. I spoke with one of the lawyers working for Jeffrey at one point to clear what we were doing, and asked him what he thought about the idea of a number of escorts donating part of their fee to the legal defense fund. He checked with his boss and got back to me and discouraged the idea. I completely understand the concern about optics, and listened to what he said. Having said that, I still love the idea. The context would be different if it's not money to defend a particular individual, where you could argue all it does is reinforce certain notions about him. If I were to try it again, I like the idea that this is a broad effort for escorts to use what they are good at to fight back, and also uses fun ways to draw clients in. But you could argue it would still be bad optics. I had specific reasons for joining this debate which are not exactly the same as the OP or Zachary, although I agree with parts of what they are saying. I particularly agree with their characterization of what you can expect a lot of escorts to do to survive FOSTA. I think the LGBTQ community in this century has arguably been THE poster child for bold, compassionate, heartfelt, and effective organizing, and has used their political power to win things that just seem amazing - like the same sex marriage fight. At the same time, the very same community has greeted other efforts with a yawn, and in some cases with what at least feels like open hostility. That's fine. Everybody has a right to their opinions, and their causes. I'm very blunt about mine. My view of reality is that if you don't want to fight, and you don't want to protest, then don't be surprised when things work out in a way you may not like. So let me say again that no part of this thread had to do with political protest. The OP and Zachary painted a picture of a business model, and I think it is a pretty good guess of where many escorts may choose to go with their business. If you took the word I used - "resistance" - to mean some form of political organizing or protest, I apologize. I meant "resistance" more in this context: "The market resisted the large increase in the price of iPhones. Profits to Apple plummeted." I think the points made about supply and demand were right on. FOSTA is designed to cut off access to supply. You may not want to hear it, but some escorts will resist this law by limiting their clients to regulars and charging higher fees. I view that as resistance and survival. Some of you argued that demand will go down as well. You may very well be right. To me all of that is lose/lose, not win/win. But again, even if we just lost big - because we just did - it's better to lose and survive. I like Sunday Zip's idea. A lot. I would love to hear more contributions about whether or how people think it makes sense to unify to fight FOSTA. But this is not the thread or forum to do that. I boldfaced the word "unify" because I said right upfront to the OP, on two different threads in two different ways, that his was not a "unifying" proposal. I actually would characterize it as exactly what you should expect if people don't unify, and entreprenuerial escorts who are cynical about Congress (like most of you are, I suspect) are left to figure out how to resist and survive on their own. I don't blame them for thinking about how to survive. You may not like to hear it, and that's okay. But that's what a lot of escorts are going to do. And if you beat them up for saying it, you are mostly encouraging them to be less candid. My bias should be clear, even if the OP in this case does not share it. It's better to unify and fight than to be divided and be left with figuring out simply how to resist and survive.

I know nothing about the Dark Web and I am not internet savvy. So educate me. Here's the first article I got when I Googled Tor: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/how-to-access-the-dark-web-a7047041.html So they kept mentioning Silk Road. And I kept thinking, isn't that the site they shut down? "Shut down by the FBI in October 2013. Silk Road 2.0 shut down by FBI and Europol on 6 November 2014. Silk Road 3.0 went offline in 2017 due to loss of funds. Silk Road was an online black market and the first modern darknet market, best known as a platform for selling illegal drugs." I'm an advocate of the "hiding in plain sight" option. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. There's a First Amendment and freedom of speech. Engaging in freedom of speech is not doing anything wrong. If you go to the Dark Web, it seems like it could in itself be perceived as a smoking gun, which suggests you do have something to hide. The article I hyperlinked says this: "The Dark Web positions itself as an almost lawless digital space where nearly anything goes. While you can find places on these sites in which real content and discussions are being had, things can get unsettling. Despite this, the Dark Web is important because it provides privacy and anonymity to users around the world." I bold-faced "almost" because obviously it wasn't really lawless, or Silk Road would not have been seized. I get the fact that it might have a particular appeal to those who place a high premium on the idea of privacy and personal liberty. But is there any reason to think that if I can access it, the government can't, too? If anything, I would think and hope they spend more time trying to infiltrate questionable websites on the Dark Web than they do on the "normal" Web???

https://www.lawfareblog.com/fosta-new-anti-sex-trafficking-legislation-may-not-end-internet-its-not-good-law-either Like many I've now read dozens and dozens of articles on the law. The above is one of the best I've read. It hyperlinks to other good information, it gives a good history of how the law got shaped, and in particular it does a good job describing the ambiguities in the law as enacted. This line in particular stands out: "The language is confusing, especially the “knowing facilitation” standard, which makes it hard to imagine that state and local prosecutors will be eager to expend scarce resources on enforcement. Even the Justice Department voiced concerns about the bill in a letter to Goodlatte." Let me use an example, as I read it. If I post on Facebook that I hired a masseur yesterday and got a happy ending, does that mean Facebook is "knowingly facilitating" prostitution? Is a masseur giving you a happy ending "prostitution?" And even if it is, is Facebook responsible for knowingly facilitating it just because I bragged online about how hot it was? I think that line captures the fact that a lot of lawyers and judges are going to spend a lot of time figuring that out. Hopefully, state and local law enforcement will "expend scare resources" on what the bill was primarily intended to do: go after big online "sex traffickers," not individual online masseurs. But we'll see. The other thing that article talks about is the Internet Association - the power players - switched to support the bill when the words facilitating "by any means" were taken out. So now there is this assumption that the legal standard is still pretty high as to what you have to prove. What seems to pass the smell test more, like with Backpage, is that they made millions of dollars "knowingly" on ads that sex trafficked minors. It was already illegal under 18 USC 1591 to knowingly benefit from such ads. Now that is redefined to "knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating" such advertising. Some people against FOSTA argued the legal standard to prove that could now actually be higher. Nobody knows until it goes to the judges. And the reality so far is that multiple judges threw out cases against Backpage, in part because of the CDA, but also in part because of the First Amendment. So back to my happy ending masseur. If states go after Facebook for that, and judges rule that Facebook is advertising illegal things, you may as well pull out the plug and shut down the internet now. If they leave it be, and just decide it's some guy enjoying his freedom of speech on the internet, that's a whole different thing. I can't imagine why DOJ would concern themselves with the latter. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4390361/Views-Ltr-Re-H-R-1865-Allow-States-and-Victims.pdf One final thing. Don't take my word for it. Ask DOJ. The line that jumps out at me is at the top of Page 2. DOJ tells the people writing the law there would be "minimal federal interest" in instances like when "an individual uses a cell phone to manage local commercial sex transactions involving consenting adults." So back to my happy ending masseur. I suppose that could mean he's using his cell phone to call a client. But it could probably also mean he's using his cell phone to manage his website, or his account on some aggregate masseur website. And then the question for that masseur website is what's "commercial sex" and what's "knowing facilitation?" What DOJ seems to be saying is they want to fry big fish, like Backpage, and they have "minimal interest" in our happy ending masseur, what people might say about him on Facebook, or what he might say on his masseur ad.

You did misinterpret some of what I said. Which is completely fair and understandable. I know I wrote a lot. And I was trying to make a series of nuanced points. I don't disagree with anything you express in the quote above. But I don't think it reflects exactly what I said. I did say rates are probably going up as a result of this legislation. Not because it makes sense as a protest. Because that's the most likely result of Congress trying to cut off supply. And you're absolutely right. If demand goes way down, too, that matters. And as you know, I am not a trained economist. Now let me take a few steps back. This discussion is beyond bizarre, as far as I am concerned. And beyond that, the whole situation is beyond bizarre. An online ecosystem that worked incredibly well for me (and you, and most of us here, if I may suggest) is now at risk. It just pisses me off. And I think I'm probably being more consistent than most people here about pointing out, pretty much every time I post on this issue, that the sex trafficking problem is quite real. We ought to be thinking about how we can get a handle on it, rather than being crushed by it. Having said that, my biggest fear is that there's a lot of reactive and wishful thinking going on, starting with Congress. And they are just out to crush us. As far as Blake's proposal is concerned, let me take a step back on that, too. On a separate thread, in the politics section, which he started, he floated the vague idea of somehow making FOSTA "work in our favor." He also said he wanted to direct his information and discussion only to providers. I assumed, incorrectly, that he was talking about some form of protest or organizing. So my reaction, which I stated, was why would you leave clients out? He corrected me, appropriately, and said he had no intention of encouraging people to "speak out." So at that point I just backed off. I jumped back in when he started this thread, which is in the "Ask An Escort" section. I'm sure some of the nuances of what I meant probably weren't clear. But I assumed we're now not talking about protest, or political organizing - which Blake said he is not interested in, at all. We're talking about business, as in what escorts are going to do to resist and survive. I was the one who started using the word "resistance," not Blake. The other thing I said, to put it in context, is that there were elements of what was being said that were "more like politically illiterate." I also said "this is not a unifying response." It isn't exactly shocking that a proposal to raise rates $100 was not well received by the people who would be paying that $100, is it? I implied this by talking about my experience raising rent as a landlord, but now I'll just say it bluntly. If I were going to do that, I wouldn't ask. What's the point? I'd just do it. I've never had a tenant who thanked me for raising their rent. They do thank me when I fix things. Now let me tell you what I liked about it, and still like. And I'm quoting what I said, verbatim, because I don't want to switch the goal posts. I said it seemed like Congress is basically trying to "exterminate you." I view this as young escorts like Blake and Zachary - and I am pretty sure many others, based on what escorts are saying here - who are thinking about how to resist and survive. Again, "resistance" is my word - not their's. Here were Blake's words, verbatim: "We must stand together in unison as sex-workers." So I don't see that as a call to protest. I see it as a business plan to hunker down, resist, and survive. And in that context, I'll repeat what I said, which I still mean. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love the fact that young escorts are thinking about what I view as resistance, and survival. Now, if it were up to me, and I got to dictate how things got done, I would go a different route. I'd try to unify, build a huge coalition, get as many allies as possible, and come up with a long term organizing plan. I did that for about two decades as an organizer, and - sorry - I think I was quite good at it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Blake had in mind, and with what this thread is about. Here's another thing I said. Most escorts don't think like organizers, or political activists. But they do tend to think like entrepreneurs. You can criticize whether Blake or Zachary are good at running their business, and some of you have. But absolutely no part of what they are saying surprises me. With all due respect to everyone here - because my core conviction is we are all on the same side - everything they are saying is absolutely predictable. It's exactly what I would predict from a group of people that Congress is trying to - my word again - "exterminate." They are thinking about how to hunker down, resist, and survive. The final and most important part of what I said were these words: supply and demand. A lot of people weighing in here offered their own ideas of how future supply and demand might work. None of us are right, because it's all speculation. So, like you, I'm gazing at a crystal ball. Congress is intentionally trying to cut off supply, and they are hoping that will reduce demand. (NYPD cops in one newspaper article just actually admitted their efforts won't stop "regulars." They are just trying to deter what one cop called "legitimate" people - whatever the fuck that means!). So if you cut off supply without reducing demand, and increase risk, guess what happens? So is it really a surprise that escorts are thinking. "Okay, less is more. We'll have fewer customers, who are regulars, and charge more money." Like that or not, it's a business model that is actually completely consistent with what the NYPD just predicted in the NY Post. So I'm not talking about a form of protest. I'm making guesses about supply and demand. Is that the way it will work? I don't know. I'll repeat it again: it largely depends on how aggressive law enforcement is, and whether that really deters demand. I think you agree. We just don't know that yet. But you are right about this: I do think it's a likely scenario that rates are going to go up as a result of the legislation. A lot of escorts are going to focus on how to survive in a more challenging market, where "regulars" are likely to be looking more than ever for security and discretion. Obviously, it's absurd to talk about decriminalization right now. And it's fair to say that you weren't really saying escorts should lower our rates. But I did mean what I said. If we decriminalized, my best guess is that would increase supply, and would tend to lower rates. That's a huge generalization. But I think it's a fair one if you want a simple one liner about what it's done in countries like Germany. My point was that we are going in exactly the opposite direction, fast. So I'm guessing we'll have the opposite results. I'll say it again. Supply is being cut off almost as we speak. And that is the exact intention of FOSTA. They just took out Backpage, which is huge. We have no idea who is next. It's completely fair for people to criticize the ideas about a business model Blake put up here. And let me say again, "resistance" is my word, not his. But I will repeat the question I asked: if this isn't the right way to resist, what is? That's meant as a rhetorical question, because I don't want to hijack the thread any more than I have already. So here we are. The handwriting has been on the wall for at least a few years. One couldn't help notice Rentboy in 2015, and SESTA being debated last year. So far, it seems like we are much better at reacting than at getting ahead of things. I think many people feel we have no choice. But if that's the case, I'm sorry. Don't be surprised if younger escorts, who feel completely cynical about Congress anyway, focus on a plan to survive this thing. It was completely predictable. If we do nothing else, I'd guess that's about the only place it has to go. I've been asking around to people I know very well and trust. And mostly what I think I hear is that people think it's not worth pushing back, because they don't feel we can actually change anything. If I'm not hearing what people are actually saying, please correct me. It breaks my heart, and I would love to be wrong. But if I'm right, don't be surprised if what happened in Florida happens here. Younger people who are interested in survival are going to go off and do it their way, because it's better than nothing. That should not come as a surprise. Are Zachary and Blake older and wiser? No, of course not. We are. So if we think we have a better idea, we better actually start coming up with it.